

I 



















LEE THE AMERICAN 






I 










1 __ 


<JtJL “JL X ^ 


BY 


GAMALIEL BRADFORD 


*♦ 



BOSTON AND NEW YORK 

HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY 
@be fitoertfibe Cambribge 







» / 



COPYRIGHT. 1912, BY GAMALIEL BRADFORD, JR, 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 


Published March tQZ2 


■U •Mb I 



I 1 <• 


TO 

THE YOUNG MEN 

BOTH OF THE NORTH AND OF THE SOUTH 
WHO CAN MAKE OR UNMAKE 
THE FUTURE OF THE 
AMERICA 

OF WASHINGTON, OF LINCOLN, AND OF LEE 








PREFACE 


The formal and final biography of Lee should be writ¬ 
ten by a competent military specialist, like Henderson. 
This book, although it aims to give an intelligible bio¬ 
graphical narrative, aims much more to give a clear, 
consistent, sympathetic portrait of a great soul. In short, 
its purpose is not so much biography as psychography. 
Those to whom the latter term is new will find a full 
discussion of it, both in general and in relation to Lee, 
in the Appendix. 

For material I have relied mainly upon the “ Official 
Records of the Union and Confederate Armies” and the 
lives of Lee by Long, Jones, Fitzhugh Lee, and Captain 
R. E. Lee. But a complete bibliography of sources 
would be practically a bibliography of the war literature 
both Northern and Southern. I have endeavored to 
give in the Notes my authority for every verbal quota¬ 
tion and for all important or disputable statements of 
fact. 

My thanks are due chiefly to the “ Atlantic Monthly,” 
also to the “ South Atlantic Quarterly,” and the “ Sewa- 
nee Review,” for their hospitality. This has enabled me 
to submit all my chapters to public criticism before giv¬ 
ing them the final revision which has certainly not elim¬ 
inated all errors, but has, I hope, diminished the number. 


Vlll 


PREFACE 


I wish to thank also the numerous correspondents who 
have sent me corrections and suggestions. Some have 
been severe. Most have been kindly. All have been 
helpful. I trust they will appreciate the result of their 
helpfulness as much as I do. 


CONTENTS 


I. Lee Before the War.' ' . 3 

Lee’s descent and indifference to it — his father — his mother 
— his childhood — education — West Point —- marriage and 
Virginia surroundings — life until the Mexican War — service 
in Mexico — Scott and others praise him — domestic corre¬ 
spondence— professional life during the fifties — superintend¬ 
ent at West Point — service on the plains—political and per¬ 
sonal details in letters — arrest of John Brown — Lee’s per¬ 
sonal appearance. 

II. The Great Decision. 25 

Growth of a Lee legend to be deplored — his strong sense of 
duty — his views before the war — approach of the struggle — 
offered command of U. S. Army — interview with Scott — 
resigns his commission — discussion of his course — Rawle on 
West Point — general excuse of secession — does not apply to 
Lee — his state loyalty— a natural sentiment — has also a 
deeper political significance — Lee thus felt he was fighting for 
liberty — but also fighting for slavery, the real cause of the 
war — Lee did not believe in slavery and this makes tragedy 
of his position — absolute constancy to decision once made — 
no thought of personal advantage. 

III. Lee and Davis. 48 

Material for study of Davis — his character — an orator — 
practical qualities — a nervous sensitive — his general rela¬ 
tions with military subordinates — Lee’s tact and deference to 
Davis — instance of this in offer to resign after Gettysburg — 
yet Lee does not hesitate to assert himself, when necessary— 
and, in spite of all his tact, finds Davis difficult — Davis’s 
estimate of Lee — Lee’s estimate of Davis — their relations 
grow more critical towards the close — Davis’s unpopularity — 


X 


CONTENTS 


how far he himself was responsible for this — public disposi¬ 
tion to set up Lee as dictator — he refuses — friendly relations 
between him and Davis consequently preserved to the end. 

IV. Lee and the Confederate Government . . 74 

Lee takes command of Virginia forces — then enters service of 
Confederacy — his subordination to civil power — limits oif 
this subordination and assertion of authority in various direc¬ 
tions — as to retaliation — as to negro military service — his 
great influence shown in this and in the desire to make him dic¬ 
tator — could he as such have saved the Confederacy? — Mo¬ 
tives of his refusal — not preference of state to national alle¬ 
giance— rather, modesty and unwillingness to assume respons¬ 
ibility that did not belong to him — also a consciousness of the 
uncertain political future of the Confederacy — leaves this 
future to God — his attitude towards peace negotiations — 
believes to the end that success is possible, if the people will 
make sacrifices — loyal and lofty acceptance of the result — 

l 

dies a true American. 

V. Lee and His Army. 100 

Lee’s relations to his army as showing his character — his or¬ 
ganizing ability — his discipline, lenient, but productive of 
good results — discipline of officers — tact and sympathetic 
suggestion — difficulties as to promotion — disputes of the 
officers with each other — largely as to share of blame for 
failure — Lee’s example and influence in this regard — personal 
relation with officers — no familiarity, but always kindliness 

— his accessibility — his relations with the common soldiers 

— memory for names and faces — simplicity of his habits — 
his army’s love for him — cause of this his love for them — 
illustrative anecdote. 

VI. Lee and Jackson . .... 127 

Character of Jackson — a fighter, sensitive and kindly, but 
full of devouring energy — and able to inspire others with the 
same — was he ambitious? — his religion — did it destroy his 
ambition? — what he might have accomplished — his devotion 


CONTENTS 


to Lee — his opinion of Lee — Lee’s opinion of Jackson — 
their military relations — Jackson’s subordination to Lee — 
his insubordination to others — his relations to his own in¬ 
feriors — his soldiers love him — with his officers some friction 
which Lee has to remove — their relations as to generalship — 
which deserves the glory? — especially at Chancellorsville — 

Lee’s superiority in luminousness. 

VII. Lee in Battle. 153 

Amount of Lee’s direction in actual conflict — how much had he 
of the soldier’s passion for fighting? —quality of his courage — 
exposure to danger — was he unbalanced in great crises? — 
his heroic combativeness at Antietam — his bearing and man¬ 
ner in battle — picture of him after defeat — Lee and his sol¬ 
diers in battle — triumph — failure, the surrender — Lee and 
Grant. 

VIII. Lee as a General.170 

Difficulty of estimating greatness — especially military great¬ 
ness— brief outline of Lee’s military career — partial judg¬ 
ments in his favor — Southern enthusiasm — partial judg¬ 
ments against him — Badeau, Grant — impartial Northern 
judgment — recognition of Lee’s difficulties — discussion of 
mistakes — but enthusiastic praise — foreign judgment — 
mistakes again — but high and discriminating commendation 
— verdict of expert member of U. S. general staff — summary 
of Lee’s great qualities — organizing ability — boldness or 
rashness? — energy and rapidity — independence — know¬ 
ledge of adversaries — his character even more important than 
his generalship. 

IX. Lee’s Social and Domestic Life . . . 196 

Lee’s manner in general society — his fondness for the society 
of women — his jesting and quiet fun — his courtesy and 
kindness in business intercourse — had he intimate friend¬ 
ships?— a letter of Johnston’s — illustrative anecdotes — 
domestic relations — with his servants — with his children — 
advice and guidance — affection — generosity — playful en- 


CONTENTS 


• • 

Xll 

joyment — Lee and his wife — always isolated — three so¬ 
cial motives — with Lee only kindness, human fellowship — 
love of children — of animals — still always isolated — one 
friend only, God. 

X. Lee’s Spiritual Life.221 

Lee’s education — his style as a writer — shows little love for 
intellectual pursuits — little taste for aesthetic pleasures — 
mild enjoyment of nature — eminently practical — not cold, 
however, quick temper, well-controlled his purity and gen¬ 
eral self-control — order and system — New England con¬ 
science — reserve of speech — sometimes misinterpreted 
thoroughly democratic — had he ambition? domesticity and 
religion — his religion not sectarian —■ not dogmatic essen¬ 
tially humble —and largely practical — public worship — 
forgiveness and Christian spirit — missionary tendencies 
prayer — Lee’s indifference to its inconsistencies — personal 
relation to God — God the cardinal fact in his life. 

XI. Lee After the War.247 

Withdraws immediately into private life — attitude towards 
U. S. government — refuses to take part in politics — avoids 
war topics, but loves and is loved by old soldiers — his few 
recorded opinions on the war — avoids all publicity—affec¬ 
tionate relations with neighbors and family — refuses lucra¬ 
tive positions and accepts presidency of Washington College — 
his labors and aims as an educator — management of his 
faculty — discipline of students — as to conduct — as to 
scholarship — influence in college and through whole South — 
greatness in failure — value of this for all times and especially 
for twentieth century America. 

Appendix .267 

Psychography and its difficulties — partiality — from general 
prejudices — from the desire for rhetorical effect —from per¬ 
sonal sympathy — from laziness — objective difficulties—dif¬ 
ficulty of accuracy as to fact — actions — words written and 


CONTENTS 


XUl 


reported — greater difficulty of deducing motive from action 
— still greater difficulty of generalizing motives into qualities 
of character — in spite of these difficulties character-study to 
be pursued for its fascination — also for its practical value — 
choice of great men as subjects — their common humanity 
—danger of psychography degenerating into gossip — remedy 
for this, love — Lee lovable—his influence and desirability of 
extending it. 

Notes. 285 

• • • • • • • • • 


Index . 


3i3 














I 


■*» 







ILLUSTRATIONS 


General Robert Edward Lee. (. Photogravure ). 

/ Frontispiece 

From a painting by Theodore Pine (1904), in the possession of 
Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Va. Now repro¬ 
duced for the first time. 

Robert E. Lee.10 

From a painting, about 1831, by West (son or nephew of 
Benjamin West), in the possession of Washington and Lee 
University. The uniform is that of a Second Lieutenant, 

Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army. It is the first painting of Lee, 
and is said to have been painted shortly after his marriage. 

Jefferson Davis .48 

From a photograph by W. W. Foster, Richmond, Va. 

General Lee on Traveler.100 

From a photograph by Miley & Son, Lexington, Va. 

Stonewall Jackson.128 

Drawn from life, in 1861, near Ball’s Bluff, by Dr. Adelbert 
Volckof Baltimore. 

Reproduced by the courtesy of Mrs. S. B. Herrick. 

Mrs. Robert E. Lee.196 

From a photograph by Miley & Son, Lexington, Va. 

Robert E. Lee.248 

From the painting by Pioto in the possession of the Virginia 
Military Institute. Now reproduced for the first time. 


xvi 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


Facsimile of Lee’s Letter accepting the Presi¬ 
dency of Washington College .... 256 

Reproduced by the courtesy of the University. 

Robert E. Lee. 258 

When president of Washington College. From a photograph 
by W. W. Foster, Richmond, Va. 

Head from Recumbent Statue of Lee . . . 264 

By Edward V. Valentine. 

In Lee Memorial Chapel, Washington and Lee University. 

From a photograph by Miley & Son, Lexington, Va. 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


Au reste, dans toutes ces citations je ne pretends pas 
endosserles passages que j’emprunte; je m’attache, 
comme toujours, a faire valoiret a faireconnaitre l’au- 
teur que j’analyse, par ses meilleurs cotes, laissant au 
lecteur la balance de tout et l’arbitrage. Sainte-Beuve « 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


i 

LEE BEFORE THE WAR 

# 

The Lees of Virginia are descended from Richard Lee, 
who came to this country toward the middle of the 
seventeenth century. Richard’s English affiliations have 
been the subject of much dispute. Early Virginia gene¬ 
alogists derived him from the ancient and honorable 
family of Shropshire Lees and thought they had identi¬ 
fied him exactly. Grave difficulties were discovered in 
this connection and at one time the emigrant seemed 
likely to be transferred to the delightful kinship of Sir 
Harry Lee of Ditchley and Woodstock. But the au¬ 
thorities were still dissatisfied, and have now apparently 
returned to the Shropshire origin, though Richard’s 
precise position in that family is not easily determined . 1 

On his mother’s side Robert Lee, doubtless in com¬ 
mon with some hundreds of thousands of others, is said 
to have been descended from King Robert Bruce . 2 

Like many people who have ancestors, Lee displayed 
a considerable indifference to them. “General Lee had 
never the time or inclination to study genealogy, and 
always said he knew nothing beyond his first ancestor, 
Colonel Richard Lee, who migrated to America in the 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


4 

reign of Charles I.” 3 On having a seal cut he does in¬ 
deed, with apology, show some interest about the arms, 
“ which I have thought, perhaps foolishly enough, might 
as well be right as wrong.” 4 But when an enterprising 
genealogist undertakes a Lee book, the general’s com¬ 
ment is: “ I am very much obliged to Mr.-for the 

trouble he has taken in relation to the Lee genealogy. 
I have no desire to have it published, and do not think 
it would afford sufficient interest beyond the immediate 
family to pay for the expense. I think the money had 
better be appropriated to relieve the poor.” 5 

Which does not mean that he was not daily and 
hourly conscious with pride that he belonged to the 
Virginia Lees, a name writ as large as any in the history 
of the country and transmitted to him with an honor 
which it was his constant care never to tarnish. From 
the first Richard down, the Lees had always been doing 
something useful and often something great, and they 
were distinguished by the friendship as well as by the 
admiration of Washington. 

Robert Lee’s father, Light Horse Harry, fought the 
Revolutionary War beside Washington and Greene. 
He was a fiery soldier and a more impetuous spirit than 
his son. He took a hot and eager part in politics and 
had warm friends and bitter enemies. In his last lin¬ 
gering illness his colored nurse did something he did 
not like. He flung his boot at her. She flung it back 
and won his heart. It is a trivial incident, but it is worth 



LEE BEFORE THE WAR 


5 

a chapter in differentiating the father from the son, who 
flung no boots and had none flung at him. 

Harry Lee was a scholar and loved literature. He 
read Sophocles and Racine and the Greek philosophers 
and commented on them in letters far more spirited and 
delightful than any of Robert’s. The father also wrote 
memoirs which the son edited. Partial admirers rate 
them with Caesar’s. Jefferson, who hated Harry Lee 
politically, says of them: “I am glad to see the romance 
of Lee removed from the shelf of history to that of fable. 
Some small portions of the transactions he relates were 
within my own knowledge; and of these I can say he 
has given more falsehood than fact.” 6 

Harry Lee was forty-nine years old in 1807, when 
Robert was born. The son was only eleven when his 
father died and during much of that time they had not 
been together. Therefore the paternal influence is not 
likely to have been very great. Nevertheless, Lee cher¬ 
ished his father’s memory with deep reverence. When 
he was in South Carolina in 1861, he wrote, “ I had the 
gratification at length of visiting my father’s grave.” 7 
And Colonel Long describes the incident simply but 
impressively: “He went alone to the tomb, and after a 
few moments of silence, plucked a flower and slowly 
retried his steps.” 8 

Lee’s relations with his mother were much more 
intimate and prolonged. She appears to have been 
a woman of high character and to have taught her son 


6 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


practical as well as moral excellences. She was for 
many years an invalid and Robert took much of the care 
both of her and of the household, which may have been 
useful training in self-sacrifice, but must have cut him 
off somewhat from the natural outflow, the fresh spon¬ 
taneousness of boyish spirits. I think he showed the 
effect of this all his life. 

Of his childish years we know little. He came so late 
to greatness that the usual crop of reminiscences does 
not seem to have been gathered. Perhaps he did not 
furnish good material for reminiscences. Who were his 
companions? Did he love them and they him? What 
were his hopes and ambitions? Was it to be said of 
him, as was said of his father, that “ he seems to have 
come out of his mother’s womb a soldier ” ? 9 We get a 
rare glimpse of love for sports: “ In later days General 
Lee has been heard to relate with enthusiasm how as a 
boy he had followed the hunt (not infrequently on foot) 
for hours over hill and valley without fatigue.” 10 Horses 
all his life were a delight to him. He himself wrote : “ I 
know the pleasure of training a handsome horse. I en¬ 
joy it as much as any one.” 11 A good observer wrote of 
him: “ He loved horses, and had good ones, and rode 
carefully and safely, but I never liked his seat.” 12 

On exceptional occasions some touch of boyish mem¬ 
ory breaks through habitual reserve. “ ’T was seldom 
that he allowed his mind to wander to the days of his 
childhood and talk of his father and his early associates, 


LEE BEFORE THE WAR 


7 

but when he did he was far more charming than he 
thought,” says Longstreet, 13 with unusually delicate dis¬ 
crimination. Thus Lee writes, after the war, to a lady 
who had sent him photographs of Stratford, the fine old 
Virginia manor house where he was born: “Your pic¬ 
ture vividly recalls scenes of my earliest recollections and 
happiest days. Though unseen for years, every feature 
of the house is familiar to me.” And Miss Mason tells 
us that shortly before his death he visited Alexandria 
and “one of the old neighbors found him gazing wist¬ 
fully over the palings of the garden in which he used to 
play. ‘ I am looking/ said he, ‘ to see if the old snowball 
trees are still here. I should have been sorry to miss 
them/ ” 14 

We know hardly more of Lee’s education than of his 
childish adventures and amusements. When he was 
thirteen years old, Jefferson wrote of Virginia generally: 
“What is her education now? Where is it? The little 
we have we import, like beggars, from other states; or 
import their beggars to bestow on us their miserable 
crumbs.” 15 But Jefferson was especially deploring the 
lack of educational institutions. His democratic instincts 
could not tolerate the traditions of a country where down 
to the time of the Revolution “ newspapers and literature 
at large were a prescribed commodity,” 16 and whose gov¬ 
ernor, Sir William Berkeley, said: “ I thank God there 
are no free schools nor printing and I hope we shall not 
have them these hundred years.” 17 Young men in Lee’s 


x 


8 LEE THE AMERICAN 

station doubtless received more or less solid instruction 
of the classical order. In 1811 the Lees removed to Alex¬ 
andria with the special purpose of educating the child¬ 
ren. Robert’s first teacher was a Mr. Leary, who lived 
until after the war, and to whom his pupil wrote in 1866, 
with kindly remembrance : “ I beg to express the grati¬ 
tude I have felt all my life for the affectionate fidelity 
which characterized your teaching and conduct towards 
me.” 18 Later, in preparation for West Point, Lee, still at 
Alexandria, attended the school of Mr. Benjamin Hallo- 
well, where his time was chiefly devoted to mathemat¬ 
ics. Hallo well writes that “he was a most exemplary 
student in every respect,” 19 with other laudatory re¬ 
miniscences which had probably lost nothing by the 
lapse of time and the growing celebrity of the subject 
of them. 

In 1825, when he was eighteen years old, Lee entered 
West Point. There seems to be general, if rather indefin¬ 
ite, testimony to his excellent conduct and standing in 
the Academy. He was a good scholar and graduated 
high in his class ; but I do not find many anecdotes from 
contemporaries that will help us to humanize his life 
there. His unquestioned temperance and self-control in 
moral matters appear doubly creditable, when we read 
the statements made by Colonel Thayer, superintendent 
of West Point at that time, to President Adams, as to 
the drunkenness and dissipation generally prevalent 
among the young men. 20 


LEE BEFORE THE WAR 9 

Lee graduated duly in 1829, immediately received an 
appointment in the Engineer Corps, and was stationed 
for some years at Old Point Comfort. During this time 
he married, at Arlington, in June, 1831, Miss Custis, 
Mrs. Washington’s great-granddaughter, and through 
her he later came into control of an extensive property, 
with farms, and mansions, and a considerable number of 
slaves. Although we get little account of it, his early 
married life must have brought him largely into contact 
with all the opulence and gayety and grace of that old 
Virginia aristocracy whose faults and virtues Mr. Page 
has painted so winningly that the faults seem almost as 
attractive as the virtues. Brave, handsome, courtly men, 
pure, dainty, loving, high-minded women, danced and 
laughed away the time, as they did in the golden world. 
“For all its faults, it was, I believe, the purest, sweetest 
life ever lived,” 21 says Mr. Page. Then the Northern 
reader turns to the cold, judicial narrative of Olmsted 
and reads of these same chivalrous gentlemen that, 
though “honorable, hospitable, and at the bottom of 
their hearts kind and charitable, they yet nursed a high, 
overweening sense of their importance and dignity.” 22 
He reads other facts in Olmsted, of a much darker and 
grimmer order, and cannot avoid the momentary reflec¬ 
tion that the most graceful and charming society in the 
world danced and laughed in France also before the 
Revolution. It may be, there are some ugly things that 
light hearts are dancing over to-day. 


IO 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


By temperament Lee had none of the vices of that 
vanishing world and perhaps not all its good qualities. 
I doubt if it ever impressed him very deeply, and his 
wandering military life soon withdrew him altogether 
from its influence. One reminiscence of this period — 
though only a reminiscence, and no doubt colored by the 
event, as such usually are—has marked interest in its 
anticipation of what was to come. It is given by a re¬ 
lative. “ I have often said since he entered on his bril¬ 
liant career that, although we all admired him for his 
remarkable beauty and attractive manners, I did not see 
anything in him that prepared me for his so far outstrip¬ 
ping all his compeers. The first time this idea presented 
itself to me was during one of my visits to Arlington 
after my marriage. We were all seated around the table 
at night, Robert reading. I looked up and my eye fell 
upon his face in perfect repose, and the thought at once 
passed through my mind : * You certainly look more like 
a great man than any one I have ever seen.’ ” 23 If all 
those who look like great men to their female relatives 
attained Lee’s greatness, what a great world it would be. 
Yet this glimpse has a crisp definiteness which makes 
one unwilling to pass it over. _ 

During the years preceding the Mexican War, Lee 
followed his profession of military engineer in different 
parts of the country. Now he was in Washington, in¬ 
cidentally messing with Joe Johnston and others after¬ 
wards more or less notable. Now he was in Ohio ad- 



ROBERT E. LEE 

















1II 


















. 



LEE BEFORE THE WAR 


n 


justing the boundary between that state and Michigan; 
or in New York Harbor, supervising the defenses. 

Perhaps the most important of his engineering labors 
were those at St. Louis, connected with governing and 
controlling the course of the Mississippi River. The in¬ 
teresting thing here is that at first he met with a good 
deal of opposition and abuse. He bore this with entire 
equanimity, quietly going on with his work, until his 
final success won the approval and admiration of those 
who had been most ready to find fault. 24 It was the 
same indomitable perseverance, without regard to critic¬ 
ism, which he showed again and again during the war 
and which is most concretely illustrated in the humorous 
anecdote told of him in Mexico. He had been ordered 
to take some sailors and construct a battery to be 
manned by them afterwards. The sailors did not like to 
dig dirt, and swore. Even their captain remonstrated. 
His men were fighters, not moles. Lee simply showed 
his orders and persisted. When the firing began, the 
eager mariners found their earthworks exceedingly com¬ 
fortable. Their commander went so far as to apologize 
to Lee. “Captain, I suppose, after all, your works helped 
the boys a good deal. But the fact is, I never did like 
this land fighting—it ain’t clean.” 25 

The value of Lee’s services during the Mexican War 
has perhaps been exaggerated; but the direct evidence 
shows that they were signal and important. He began as 
captain, serving with General Wool at the battle of Buena 


12 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


Vista. He then joined General Scott and took part in the 
siege of Vera Cruz. He was brevetted major at Cerro 
Gordo, lieutenant-colonel at Contreras, and colonel at 
Chapultepec. At the latter place he was slightly wounded. 
From the beginning to the end of the war he displayed 
energy, daring, and resource. 

Various anecdotes are told of his personal achieve¬ 
ments and adventures, of his scouting expedition with a 
Mexican guide before Buena Vista, when Lee’s persistent 
reconnoissance of the enemy’s position turned a vast col¬ 
lection of white tents into a Quixotic flock of sheep, of 
his nocturnal and storm-beaten exploration of a craggy 
lava tract, called the Pedregal, where no other man durst 
venture and whence no one believed that he could return 
alive. 

As to this last incident General Scott declared, in formal 
legal testimony: “ I had dispatched several staff officers 
who had, within the space of two hours, returned and 
reported to me that each had found it impracticable to 
penetrate far into the Pedrigal during the dark. . . . 
Captain Lee, having passed over the difficult ground by 
daylight, found it just possible to return to San Augustin 
in the dark, the greatest feat of physical and moral cour¬ 
age performed by any individual, in my knowledge, 
pending the campaign.” 26 And General P. F. Smith testi- 

i 

fies to the same effect: “ I wish partially to record my 
admiration of the conduct of Captain Lee, of the Engin¬ 
eers. His reconnoissances, though pushed far beyond 


LEE BEFORE THE WAR 


13 

the bounds of prudence, were conducted with so much 
skill that their fruits were of the utmost value — the 
soundness of his judgment and personal daring being 
equally conspicuous. 27 

Scott also bears general and repeated witness to the 
value of Lee’s labors and the excellence of his character. 
We have the commander’s written praise of “the gallant 
and indefatigable Captain Lee,” 28 who was “ as distin¬ 
guished for felicitous execution as for science and dar¬ 
ing.” 29 We have the more emphatic, if less reliable, re¬ 
ported sayings, that Scott’s own success in Mexico was 
“largely due to the skill, valor, and undaunted energy 
of R. E. Lee,” 30 that “ Lee is the greatest military genius 
in America,” 31 and that “ if I were on my deathbed to¬ 
morrow, and the President of the United States should 
tell me that a great battle was to be fought for the lib¬ 
erty or slavery of the country, and asked my judgment 
as to the ability of a commander, I would say, with my 
dying breath, let it be Robert E. Lee.” 32 

Nor was this wholly a matter of Scott’s personal par¬ 
tiality ; for the comment of other generals is equally laud¬ 
atory. Lee’s “ distinguished merit and gallantry deserve 
the highest praise,” says Pillow. 33 Lee, “ in whose skill and 
judgment I had the utmost confidence,” says Shields. 34 
“ Equally daring and not less meritorious were the serv¬ 
ices of Captain Lee,” says Pillow again. 35 

I have dwelt thus minutely on these w^ords of contem¬ 
poraries, because they come from men who thought of 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


14 

Lee merely as a promising captain among other cap¬ 
tains and did not look back to his dim past through the 
purple haze of Chancellorsville and the Wilderness. 

With the Mexican War we enter more freely upon 
Lee’s letters to his wife and children, which from that 
time on form the best commentary on his life and charac¬ 
ter. He shows a keen appreciation of the beauty and 
richness of Mexican landscape: “Jalapa is the most 
beautiful country I have seen in Mexico, and will com¬ 
pare with any I have seen elsewhere. [Lee had traveled 
widely in his own land, but he never visited Europe.] 
I wish it was in the United States, and that I was located, 
with you and the children around me, in one of its rich, 
bright valleys. I can conceive nothing more beautiful in 
the way of landscape or mountain scenery. We ascended 
upwards of four thousand feet that morning, and when¬ 
ever we looked back the rich valley was glittering in 
the morning sun and the light morning clouds flitting 
around us. On reaching the top, the valley appeared at 
intervals between the clouds which were below us, and 
high over all towered Orizaba, with its silver cap of 
snow.” 36 

He visits a sacred shrine and blends tropical color with 
the formal splendors of Catholic devotion : “ The ‘ Trees 
of the Noche Triste,’ so called from their blooming 
about the period of that event, are now in full bloom. 
The flower is a round ellipsoid, and of the most magni¬ 
ficent scarlet color I ever saw. I have two of them in my 


LEE BEFORE THE WAR 


i5 

cup before me now. I wish I could send them to you. 
The holy image was standing on a large silver maguey 
plant, with a rich crown on her head and an immense 
silver petticoat on. There were no votaries at her shrine, 
which was truly magnificent, but near the entrance of the 
church were the offerings of those whom she had re¬ 
lieved. They consist of representations in wax of the 
parts of the human body that she had cured of the dis¬ 
eases with which they had been affected. And I may say 
there were all parts. I saw many heads severed from the 
trunks. Whether they represented those she had restored 
I could not learn. It would be a difficult feat.” 37 

The references to politics in these letters are interesting 
because they show more vehemence and ardor of expres¬ 
sion than, I think, Lee would have permitted himself in 
later years. Thus, he writes of the treatment of Trist by 
the Administration: “ I presume it is perfectly fair, having 
made use of his labors, and taken from him all that he had 
earned, that he should be kicked off as General Scott 
has been, whose skill and science, having crushed the 
enemy and conquered a peace, can now be dismissed, 
and turned out as an old horse to die.” 38 And, again in 
connection with Scott: “ The great cause of our success 
was in our leader. It was his stout heart that cast us on 
the shore of Vera Cruz ; his bold self-reliance that forced 
us through the pass at Cerro Gordo; his indomitable 
courage that, amidst all the doubts and difficulties that 
surrounded us at Puebla, pressed us forward to this cap- 


i6 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


ital, and finally brought us within its gates, while others, 
who croaked all the way from Brazos, and advised delay 
at Puebla, finding themselves at last, contrary to their 
expectations, comfortably quartered within the city, find 
fault with the way they came there.” 39 

Also, as to the general question of the war, the cap¬ 
tain of forty speaks out with greater frankness than we 
find in the letters of the Confederate commander of fifty- 
five. “It is rather late in the day to discuss the origin 
of the war; that ought to have been understood before 
we engaged in it. It may have been produced by the 
act of either party or the force of circumstances. Let the 
pedants of diplomacy determine. It is certain that we 
are the victors in a regular war, continued, if not brought 
on, by their obstinacy and ignorance, and they are 
whipped in a manner of which women might be ashamed. 
We have the right, by the laws of war, of dictating the 
terms of peace and requiring indemnity for our losses 
and expenses. Rather than forego that right, except 
through a spirit of magnanimity to a crushed foe, I 
would fight them ten years, but I would be generous in 
exercising it.” 40 

After the Mexican War, Lee resumed the routine life 
of his profession, sojourning in one part of the country 

or another, as duty called. He was invited by the Cuban 

> 

Junta to become their military leader ; 41 but he declined 
because he felt such a position to be hardly compatible 
with his training as an officer of the United States Army. 


LEE BEFORE THE WAR 


17 

He was busied for some time with the construction of a 
fort in Baltimore. In 1852, he was made superintendent 
of the West Point Academy. His diffidence about ac¬ 
cepting this position is extremely characteristic: “ I learn 
with much regret the determination of the Secretary of 
War to assign me to that duty, and I fear I cannot 
realize his expectations in the management of an Insti¬ 
tution requiring more skill and more experience than I 
command.” 42 

I find little direct evidence as to Lee’s life at West 
Point, but his biographer declares that it was in every 
way successful. ‘‘The discipline of the Academy was 
made more efficient, . . . and a spacious riding-hall 
was constructed.” 43 Colonel Chesney makes similar 
statements from personal observation: “ The writer 

visited West Point during the time of General Lee’s 
charge and saw the institution very thoroughly, passing 
some days there. He is able, therefore, to testify to its 
completeness, and the efficiency of the courses of study 
and discipline — never more remarkable, he believes, 
than at that period.” 44 Captain Lee bears witness to 
his father’s kindness of manner and ready tact in making 
the raw students feel at ease and tells one anecdote which 
is perfectly in character. Lee was riding one day with 
his son, when they caught sight of three cadets who 
were evidently far out of bounds and who at once re¬ 
tired still further. After a few moments’ silence, Lee 
said: “ Did you know those young men ? But no, if you 






18 LEE THE AMERICAN 

did, don’t say so. I wish boys would do what is right; 
it would be so much easier for all parties.” 45 

In 1855 Lee was appointed to a lieutenant-colonelcy 
in one of the newly created cavalry regiments and ceased 
his connection with West Point. From this time until 
the breaking-out of the war his service was mainly in 
the Western and Southwestern States, while his family 
remained at Arlington. 

Many of the letters written during these years have 
been printed. As letters they are not especially brilliant 
or remarkable. But they are interesting for the study of 
Lee, as showing his gentleness, his constant care and 
thought for others, and his shrewd and just observation 
of everything that was going on about him. Playful 
descriptions of scenes and people alternate with deeper 
feeling, such as his expression of grief for a child over 
whose body he had been asked to read the funeral 
service. “I hope I shall not be called on again, for 
though I believe that it is far better for the child to be 
called by its Heavenly Creator into His presence in its 
purity and innocence, unpolluted by sin and uncon¬ 
taminated by the vices of the world, still it so wrings a 
parent’s heart with anguish that it is painful to see. Yet 
I know it was done in mercy to both — mercy to the 
child, mercy to the parents.” 46 

To his own children he writes with gayety and grace. 

“ Robert .... has been prospecting about the neigh¬ 
borhood for cherry trees, and their bloom on the sides of 


LEE BEFORE THE WAR 


19 

the mountains delights his vision every moment. He 
revels at dinner in fried chicken and mush. An elegant 
school, in his opinion.” 47 And again he passes to sober 
advice, useful, if not original: “ As you have com¬ 
menced, I hope you will continue never to exceed your 
means. It will save you much anxiety and mortification, 
and enable you to maintain your independence of char¬ 
acter and feeling. It is easier to make our wishes con¬ 
form to our means than our means conform to our 
wishes. In fact, we want but little. Our happiness de¬ 
pends upon our independence, the success of our opera¬ 
tions, prosperity of our plans, health, contentment, and 
the esteem of our friends.” 48 

Then suddenly, into a life thus organized for compar¬ 
ative peace and quiet, burst the thunderbolt of war. It 
had not, of course, been unexpected, to Lee any more 
than to any one else. To him, more than perhaps to 
almost any one else, because of his position and temper¬ 
ament, it came full of burden and anguish, unillumined 
by hope. He trusts that President Buchanan “ will be 
able to extinguish fanaticism North and South, cultivate 
love for the country and Union, and restore harmony 
between the different sections.” 49 As the danger comes 
nearer, he finds confidence more difficult: “ My little 
personal troubles sink into insignificance when I contem¬ 
plate the condition of the country, and I feel as if I could 
easily lay down my life for its safety. But I also feel that 
would bring but little good.” 50 


20 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


In October, 1859, Lee was on furlough at Arlington, 
and it must be regarded as exceedingly dramatic, all 
things considered, that he should have been the officer 
ordered to arrest John Brown. It was not in Lee’s nature 
to play up to a dramatic situation, however, and his 
conduct of the affair was as quiet, as businesslike, as free 
from sensational methods, as such a thing could be. He 
made his preparations, called on Brown and his followers 
to surrender, gave the order to attack, attacked, and in 
a few moments all was over. His own account in his 
memorandum-book is perfectly dry and quiet: “ Tuesday 
about sunrise, with twelve marines under the command 
of Lieutenant Green, broke in the door of the engine- 
house, secured the robbers, and released all of the 
[Southern] prisoners unhurt.” 61 His testimony before 
the Congressional Committee as to the whole affair is in 
the same tone: “ The result proves that the plan was 
the attempt of a fanatic or madman which could only 
end in failure ; and its temporary success w r as owing to 
the panic and confusion he succeeded in creating by 
magnifying his numbers.” 52 Yet a mind so shrewd as 
Lee’s must have had some suspicion that there were 
more fanatics and madmen in the North who might 
create panic and confusion beside which Brown’s would 
be utterly insignificant. 

As we pause here for a moment, before entering on 
the sudden and astonishing glory of Lee’s career, it will 
be well to form some conception of his physical qualities 


LEE BEFORE THE WAR 


21 


and personal appearance. The great doers of the world 
have not always been handsome or even imposing. 
Caesar, when he triumphed, may have had dignity from 
habit of command, but there can have been little beauty 
in his lean caducity. Napoleon, in later years, was fat 
and vulgar, for all the dominating power of his glance. 
It pleases us to think that Grant and Lincoln could look 
as they did and be what they were. Yet there is unde¬ 
niably something appropriate, something satisfying in 
the kingly stature and lineaments of Pericles and 
Washington. It cannot harm a royal soul to dwell 
within a royal body. And not Pericles nor Washington 
would seem in this to have been more royal than was 
Lee. 

From the study of photographs I get a more charming 
impression of his later years than of his earlier. The face 
and figure of the captain are eminently noble, high¬ 
bred, dignified ; but with the dignity there is just a sug¬ 
gestion of haughtiness, of remoteness. Or do I only see 
in the picture what I imagine of the man ? But in the 
bearded photographs of later years all trace of such re¬ 
moteness has vanished. The dignity is more marked 
than ever, but all sweet. The ample, lordly carriage, the 
broad brow, the deep, significant, intelligent eyes convey 
nothing but the largest tenderness, the profoundest hu¬ 
man sympathy, the most perfect love. And again per¬ 
haps I only see what I imagine. 

The record of actual observers is of more interest than 


22 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


any comment founded on portraits, since Captain Lee 
tells us that “my father could never bear to have his 
picture taken and there are no likenesses of him that 
really give his sweet expression.” 53 To begin with, Lee’s 
was a thoroughly manly beauty and founded all his 
life on a magnificent physique. “ From infancy to 
threescore,” says an opponent who loved and admired 
him, “ he knew no physical malady [this is not strictly 
correct], and the admirable symmetry of his person and 
the manly beauty of his countenance were the aids to his 
virtue which secured to him tolerance, affection, and 
respect from all with whom he mingled.” 54 Even towards 
the close of the war, when he was nearly sixty, it was his 
habit, when the pressure was great, “ to retire about ten 
or eleven at night, to rise at 3 A.M., breakfast by candle¬ 
light and return to the front, spending the entire day on 
the lines.” 55 

In his earlier life he is described by General Hunt as 
being “as fine-looking a man as one would wish to see, 
of perfect figure and strikingly handsome,” 56 and by 
General Meigs as “ a man then in the vigor of youthful 
strength, with a noble and commanding presence, and an 
admirable, graceful, and athletic figure.” 57 “ He had,” 
says General Preston, “ a finished form, delicate hands; 
was graceful in person.” 58 When he became superintend¬ 
ent at West Point he is pictured more minutely as “five 
feet eleven inches high, weighing 175 pounds, hair orig¬ 
inally jet black and inclined to curl at the ends; eyes 


LEE BEFORE THE WAR 


23 

hazel brown, face cleanly shaved, except a mustache; a 
countenance which beamed with gentleness and bene¬ 
volence.” 59 

At the time of the war, when more years had passed 
over him, Wise portrays him as follows: “ His form had 
fullness without any appearance of superfluous flesh, and 
was as erect as that of a cadet, without the slightest ap¬ 
pearance of constraint. His features are too well known 
to need description, but no representation of General 
Lee which I have ever seen properly conveys the light 
and softness of his eye, the tenderness and intelligence 
of his mouth, or the indescribable refinement of his face. 
One picture gives him a meatiness about the nose; an¬ 
other, hard or coarse lines about the mouth; another, 
heaviness about the chin. None of them gives the effect 
of his hair and beard. I have seen all the great men of 
our times, except Mr. Lincoln, and I have no hesitation 
in saying that Robert E. Lee was incomparably the 
greatest looking of them all.” 60 And Alexander H. Ste¬ 
phens, when he saw Lee for the first time and pressed 
upon him the question as to Virginia’s joining the Con¬ 
federacy, beheld a personage well worthy to make a 
great decision in a great cause. “As he stood there, 
fresh and ruddy as a David from the sheepfold, in the 
prime of manly beauty and the embodiment of a line of 
heroic and patriotic fathers and worthy mothers, it was 
thus I first saw Robert E. Lee. ... I had before me the 
most manly and entire gentleman I ever saw.” 61 


24 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


How many men have we all met who seemed built to 
play heroic parts, yet did not and could not play them. 
It is well, perhaps, that such a part should occasionally 
be played by a man whom nature has moulded for it. 


II 


THE GREAT DECISION 

The growth of a Lee legend is greatly to be deplored, 
most of all by Lee’s warmest admirers. “One may 
search in vain for any defect in him,” says one of the 
latest historians of the war. “ Indeed, the perfection of 
Lee becomes somewhat oppressive. One would welcome 
the discovery of a shortcoming in him, as redeeming 
him to humanity.” 1 This is unfair, but not unnatural, 
when one considers the attitude of Lee’s Southern ad¬ 
mirers. “ He was never behind time at his studies, never 
failed in a single recitation, was perfectly observant of 
the rules and regulations of the institution,” says an old 
teacher . 2 “Throughout his whole student life he per¬ 
formed no act which his pious mother could not have 
fully approved,” says Long . 3 I do not believe this is 
true. I hope it is not true. If it is true, it ought to be 
concealed, not boasted of. This is the sort of thing that 
made Washington odious to the young and remote from 
the mature for generations. “ In all essential character¬ 
istics Lee resembled Washington,” says Mr. Rhodes , 4 
with much justice. But we know that, in spite of ill- 
judged idolatry, Washington was not a prig. Neither 
was Lee, but a man, of warm flesh and blood, like the 
rest of us. No one could have had his large and tender 


26 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


sympathy for human weakness who had not known hu¬ 
man weakness himself. Above all, from the common 
soldier to the president of the Confederacy comes gen¬ 
eral testimony that Lee had charm. Now, no prig ever 
had charm. Therefore I refuse to believe that he said — 
at any rate, in those words — to Magruder in Mexico: 
“ I am but doing my duty, and with me, in small mat¬ 
ters as well as in large ones, duty must come before 
pleasure.” 5 

After this brief reservation and protest, it must be re¬ 
cognized and insisted that few men have guided their 
actions more strictly and loftily by conscience than Lee. 
That he should ever have boasted about his sense of 
duty is unbelievable. That he turned to it and con¬ 
sulted it in every crisis, and especially in the profound* 
est crisis, of his life, is certain, and whatever we ma)> 
*hink of his judgment, it is impossible to question the 
absolute rectitude of his purposes. 

During the years of violent controversy which inter¬ 
vened between the Mexican War and the secession of 
the South, Lee attended quietly to his military duties. 
Occasionally in the published letters of this period we 
get a glimpse of the interest he must have taken in what 
was going on at Washington. But it was then and al¬ 
ways his constant conviction that a soldier should not 
meddle with politics. Even when he had charge of the 
capture of John Brown there was no passion in the mat¬ 
ter. The work was done with military precision and 


THE GREAT DECISION 


27 

quiet coolness and the captive was handed over to the 
proper civil authorities. “ I am glad we did not have to 
kill him,” Lee remarked afterwards to Mrs. Pickett’s 
father, “for I believe he is an honest, conscientious old 
man.” 6 

As the struggle of parties and principles grew fiercer, 
however, Lee foresaw that sooner or later he should be 
forced to choose. Neither party satisfied him. Each 
seemed to be unreasonable, selfish, inconsiderate of the 
rights and feelings of the other; and he believed that a 
larger justice ought to be able to harmonize the oppos¬ 
ing claims without actual conflict. In December, i860, 
he writes: “ Feeling the aggression of the North, re¬ 
senting their denial of the equal rights of our citizens to 
the common territory of the Commonwealth, etc., I am 
not pleased with the course of the ‘ Cotton States,’ as 
they term themselves. In addition to their selfish, dicta¬ 
torial bearing, the threats they throw out against the 
4 Border States,’ as they call them, if they will not join 
them, argues little for the benefit or peace of Virginia, 
should she determine to coalesce with them. While I 
wish to do what is right, I am unwilling to do what is 
wrong at the bidding of the South or of the North.” 7 
And again, in January, 1861, “As far as I can judge 
from the papers, we are between a state of anarchy and 
civil war. May God avert from us both. ... I see that 
four states have declared themselves out of the Union. 
Four more apparently will follow their example. Then 


28 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


if the border states are dragged into the gulf of revolu¬ 
tion, one half of the country will be arrayed against the 
other, and I must try and be patient and wait the end, 
for I can do nothing to hasten or retard it.” 8 

The end came quickly. Lincoln was elected. Virginia 
was on the point of seceding. War seemed inevitable. 
If Lee remained in the United States Army, he would be 
forced to fight against all he loved best in the world. 
He was fifty years old. For more than thirty years he 
had served under the Stars and Stripes. Honor, advance¬ 
ment, profit were assured, if he clung to his old alleg¬ 
iance. If he abandoned it, what would come to him no 
one could tell. It is hard to imagine a man placed in a 
situation involving a profounder moral struggle or 
greater difficulty of decision. And, though Lee doubt¬ 
less did not so think of it, the decision was as important 
to the country as to himself. Without assuming, with 
some Northern writers, that he might have prevented 
Virginia’s secession and possibly war, it is not unreason¬ 
able to suppose that the course of the war might have 
been greatly different, if his military ability had been 
saved to the armies of the North. 

In April, 1861, Lee was awaiting orders at Arlington. 
On the 18th of that month he had an interview with 
Francis P. Blair, who, with the knowledge of Lincoln and 
Cameron, unofficially, but it is said authoritatively, offered 
him the command of the United States Army, in the 
field. We have Lee’s own account of this interview, 


THE GREAT DECISION 


29 

written after the war and agreeing with Blair’s. “I never 
intimated to any one that I desired the command of the 
United States Army, nor did I ever have a conversation 
with but one gentleman, the Hon. Francis P. Blair, on 
the subject, which was at his invitation and, as I under¬ 
stood, at the instance of President Lincoln. After listen¬ 
ing to his remarks, I declined the offer he made me to 
take command of the army that was to be brought into 
the field, stating as candidly and courteously as I could 
that though opposed to secession and deprecating war, 
I could take no part in an invasion of the Southern 
States.” 9 

Immediately on leaving Blair, Lee went to General 
Scott. Unfortunately we have no detailed account of this 
most important conversation from either of the princi¬ 
pals. “ I went directly from the interview with Mr. Blair 
to the office of General Scott, told him of the proposition 
that had been made to me, and my decision,” writes 
Lee. 10 Long tells us, from a very indirect source, that 
General Scott “ used every argument to persuade him 
to remain in the Union.” 11 “ But to all pleading Colonel 
Lee returned but one answer, that his sense of duty was 
stronger with him than any prospect of advancement, 
and replied to the appeal not to resign in the following 
words, * I am compelled to: I cannot consult my own 
feelings in the matter.’ ” 12 

The narrative of the only eye and ear witness who 
seems to have been actually present, General Townsend, 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


30 

exhibits Lee in a much less favorably aspect. It is so 
circumstantial that it must be quoted in full: — 

General Scott knew that he [Lee] was at Arlington Heights, 
at the house of his father-in-law, Mr. Custis, and one day 
asked me if I had seen or heard of him lately. I replied in the 
negative, except that he was on leave and at Arlington 
Heights. Said the general, “It is time he should show his 
hand and if he remains loyal should take an important com¬ 
mand.” I then suggested that I should write to Lee and ask 
him to call at the general’s headquarters. “ I wish youwould,” 
replied the general. The note was written and the next day, 
April 19, 1861, Colonel Lee came to the office. The general’s 
was the front room of the second story. His round table 
stood in the centre of the room and I had a desk in one 
corner. The aides were in an adjoining room with a door 
opening into the general’s. When Lee came in, I was alone in 
the room with the general and the door to the aides’ room was 
closed. I quietly arose, keeping my eye on the general, for it 
seemed probable he might wish to be alone with Lee. He, 
however, secretly motioned me to keep my seat and I sat 
down without Lee having a chance to notice that I had risen. 
The general, having invited Lee to be seated, the following 
conversation, as nearly as I can remember, took place. Gen. 
Scott: “You are at present on leave of absence, Colonel 
Lee?” — Col. Lee: “Yes, General, I am staying with my 
family at Arlington.” — Gen. Scott: “These are times when 
every officer in the United States service should fully deter¬ 
mine what course he will pursue and frankly declare it. No 
one should continue in government employ without being act¬ 
ively employed.” (No response from Lee.) — Gen. Scott 
(after a pause): “Some of the Southern officers are resigning. 


THE GREAT DECISION 


3i 


possibly with the intention of taking part with their States. 
They make a fatal mistake. The contest may be long and se¬ 
vere, but eventually the issue must be in favor of the Union.’* 
(Another pause and no reply from Lee.) — Gen. Scott (seeing 
evidently that Lee showed no disposition to declare himself 
loyal or even in doubt): “ I suppose you will go with the rest. 
If you purpose to resign, it is proper you should do so at 
once; your present attitude is an equivocal one.” — Col. Lee: 
“The property belonging to my children, all they possess, 
lies in Virginia. They will be ruined, if they do not go with 
their State. I cannot raise my hand against my children.” 13 

I have cited the whole of this account, because it is a 
curious instance of what appears to be reliable historical 
evidence, yet must, I am convinced, be substantially 
false. In the first place, Townsend says April 19. Lee 
says explicitly, writing at the time, April 18. Next, Lee 
says he told General Scott of the proposition that had 
been made him and of his decision. Nothing of the sort 
ippears in Townsend’s story. Further, Lee, writing to 
Mrs. Lee a few weeks later, bids his son Custis “ consult 
his own judgment, reason, and conscience as to the 
course he must take,” 14 which does not seem to fit well 
with the argument that his children would “ be ruined, 
if they do not go with their State.” Finally, a very 
slight knowledge of Lee’s character makes it impossible 
to suppose that, after weeks of careful, prayerful de¬ 
liberation and moral conflict in view of the highest 
patriotic duties, the man who again and again refused 
the offers of a grateful nation to provide for his family 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


32 

and assure them from want, the man who wrote to his 
son in the midst of the struggle that “all must be sacri¬ 
ficed for the country,” 16 could have gone to a personal 
friend whom he respected as he did Scott, with nothing 
on his lips but the poor, the paltry, the pitiful argument 
for deserting his flag and his allegiance that the property 
of his children lay in Virginia. It is true that Scott was 
a Virginian and Lee had to be careful not to wound his 
superior in justifying himself. But no man ever lived 
who was capable of handling such a situation with more 
tact. If only we had Scott’s and Lee’s own versions of 
what passed between them on that memorable day 1 16 

As it is, we merely know that two days later Lee sent 
his resignation to Scott, with an affectionate and manly 
letter, expressing his regret at separating himself from 
the service “ to which I have devoted the best years of 
my life and all the ability I possessed,” and adding, 
“save in the defense of my native State I never desire 
again to draw my sword.” 17 Immediately after this he 
was offered and accepted the position of commander-in¬ 
chief of the forces of Virginia. 

In considering Lee’s conduct at this crisis it is a mis¬ 
take to tangle one’s self up in the web of metaphysical 
casuistry which was woven about the whole constitutional 
question by the fine wits of a generation of legal quib- 
blers. Cold common sense stands amazed that men 
should have been ready to cut each others’ throats for 
the ingenious subtleties of Webster and Everett any 


THE GREAT DECISION 


33 

more than for those of Calhoun and Davis. It seems as 
if mankind would not learn by all the experience of ages 
that passion is never at a loss for argument, or appreci¬ 
ate the force of Matthew Arnold’s despairing comment, 
“ by such reasoning anything may be made out of any¬ 
thing.” 

The technical charge that Lee has to answer, the one 
most commonly brought against him, is that, having 
accepted his education and support at the hands of the 
United States Government and sworn allegiance to it, 
he broke his military oath and betrayed his trust. This 
charge is said to have been discussed by Lee himself. 
“ General Lee told Bishop Wilmer of Louisiana that if it 
had not been for the instruction he got from Rawle’s 
text-book at West Point, he would not have joined the 
South and left the old army at the breaking-out of the 
late war between the States.” 18 Surely Lee cannot be 
blamed for following the lessons which he believed the 
Government itself had taught him. It is unfortunate, 
however, that this speech has come through many 
mouths. As for Rawle’s “View of the Constitution of 
the United States of America,” although it was undoubt¬ 
edly in use during a portion of the time Lee was in the 
Academy, it seems impossible that it can have been 
given to him as a text-book. 19 Rawle was an ardent sup¬ 
porter of the Union. Yet he says, “This right [of seces¬ 
sion] must be considered as an ingredient in the com¬ 
position of the general government, which, though not 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


34 

expressed, was mutually understood, and the doctrine 
heretofore presented to the reader, in regard to the inde¬ 
feasible nature of personal allegiance, is so far qualified 
in respect to allegiance to the United States.” 20 Such 
an assertion from such a source is significant of the state 
of mind of many Americans in the second quarter of the 
century as to the metaphysical tangle of duties, loyalties, 
allegiances, to which I referred above, and which was 
inevitable in view of the peculiar organization of the 
United States Government. In any case, it cannot be 
disputed that Lee and those who took the same course 
he did were influenced by an imperious conception of 
duty as much as Scott, Thomas, and the many others 
whose action was most honorably different. 

When the decision of Lee and his fellows is surveyed 
on simpler, broader grounds, one or two general consid¬ 
erations present themselves. In a popular government, 
whenever any large, distinct section of the people thinks 
that it is permanently oppressed by the remainder, it 
will revolt. No theory, no legal argument, no paper con¬ 
stitution will ever prevent this. And in a government 
made up of long-established, originally independent 
units, as imperfectly welded together as were the United 
States in i860, such a revolt is peculiarly liable to occur. 
It is true that the North then felt, and probably for the 
most part feels now, that the South was not oppressed. 
The South felt that it was oppressed and did exactly 
what the North would have done under the same circum- 


THE GREAT DECISION 


35 

stances. I know of no more constant lover of the Union 
than Washington. Yet Washington wrote, “There is 
nothing which holds one country or one State to another 
but interest. ,, 21 

This general justification or explanation of the South¬ 
ern revolt does not, however, apply to the case of Lee. 
For up to the very hour of Virginia’s decision, he clung 
to the Union and was opposed to secession, at any rate, 
in practice. In January, 1861, he wrote : “I can antici¬ 
pate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolu¬ 
tion of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all 
the evils we complain of and I am willing to sacrifice 
everything but honor for its preservation. . . . Secession 
is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitu¬ 
tion never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and for¬ 
bearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so 
many guards and securities, if it was intended to be 
broken by every member of the Confederation at will. 
It was intended for * perpetual union,’ so expressed in the 
preamble” — Lee, of course, here confounds the Con¬ 
stitution of the United States with the “Articles of 
Confederation” —“and for the establishment of a gov¬ 
ernment, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by 
revolution or the consent of all the people in convention 
assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would 
have been established and not a government by Wash¬ 
ington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other 
patriots of the Revolution.” 22 


36 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


Surely neither Webster nor Everett ever spoke for 
Federal Union with an ardor more passionate than this. 
And after all was over, Lee testified before the Commit¬ 
tee on Reconstruction: “ I may have said and I may 
have believed that the position of the two sections which 
they held to each other was brought about by the poli¬ 
ticians of the country; that the great masses of the 
people, if they understood the real question, would have 
avoided it. ... I did believe at the time that it was 
an unnecessary condition of affairs and might have been 
avoided, if forbearance and wisdom had been practiced 
on both sides." 23 

It will at once be asked, why, then, did Lee leave the 
Union ? Because Virginia left it and he felt that Virginia 
was his country. And I cannot see how any citizen of 
the old colonial states, with all the memories and tradi¬ 
tions of his forefathers in his heart and all the local at¬ 
tachments and fellowships that constitute home, can fail 
even now to sympathize with such an attitude. “ No 
consideration on earth could induce me to act a part, 
however gratifying to me, which could be construed into 
faithlessness to this Commonwealth," 24 wrote Lee’s 
father to Madison; and at another time he expressed 
himself still more strongly: “ Virginia is my country; 
her I will obey, however lamentable the fate to wffiich it 
may subject me." 25 Longstreet, in describing his own 
decision, tells us that ‘‘a number of officers of the post 
called to persuade me to remain in the Union service. 


THE GREAT DECISION 


37 

Captain Gibbs, of the Mounted Rifles, was the principal 
talker, and after a long and pleasant discussion, I asked 
him what course he would pursue, if his State should 
pass ordinances of secession and call him to its defense. 
He confessed that he would obey the call.” 26 Hon. 
Charles Francis Adams, who has surely done more than 
any one else to help Lee on to the national glory which 
is his due, said in his Lee Centennial address, “ I hope 
I should have been filial and unselfish enough myself to 
have done as Lee did.” 27 Finally, if one may quote 
one’s own feeling as perhaps representative of many, I 
do not hesitate to say that in the certainly most improb¬ 
able, but perhaps not wholly impossible, contingency 
of a future sectional separation in the country, however 
much I might disapprove of such separation and its 
causes, I should myself be first, last, and always a son 
and subject of New England and of Massachusetts. 

There is a deeper principle involved in this attitude 
than the mere blind instinct of what the French call 
“ village-spire patriotism,” local attachment to home, 
and family, and birthplace. When the Union was first 
established, its founders had an intense and wholesome 
dread of centralized power, but the state governments 
were at that time so strong and the federal so weak that 
it was necessary to emphasize the latter in every pos¬ 
sible way in order to sustain it at all. In the nature of 
the case, however, from the very beginning the federal 
government absorbed more and more power to itself and 


38 LEE THE AMERICAN 

the states tended gradually to lose even the authority 
which had originally been left them. In one sense the 
Civil War was a protest on the part of the South against 
this evolution and an attempt to restore the constitu¬ 
tional balance as the men of 1787 had planned it. This 
protest had to be met, had to be crushed, or worse, in¬ 
calculable evils would have resulted. But the failure of 
it much increased the rapidity of the evolution already 
in progress. To-day the citizens of the newer states and 
many in the older doubtless look upon the state govern¬ 
ments as an antiquated survival, especially as this very 
attitude deteriorates those governments and everywhere 
breeds incompetence and corruption. Such people would 
sympathize entirely with the remark of a writer in the 
“Outlook ” : “Lee’s engrossing sentiment for his native 
State, mildly commendable though it might have been, 
was a pinchbeck thing.” 28 

This development of national unity, of national feel¬ 
ing, is probably inevitable, is in many ways excellent 
and admirable; but it has its very grave dangers and is 
in itself certainly much less promising for the future of 
popular government than the careful balance of local 
and central authority for which the Constitution origin¬ 
ally provided. Such, at any rate, was the opinion of 
Lee, reiterated in manifold forms all through the war. 
He, at least, felt, with the most earnest conviction, that 
he was fighting for the ideas of Washington and Jeffer¬ 
son, and that in his place they would have done as he 


THE GREAT DECISION 


39 

did. “ I had no other guide, nor had I any other object 
than the defense of those principles of American liberty 
upon which the constitutions of the several States were 
originally founded; and unless they are strictly ob¬ 
served, I fear there will be an end to Republican gov¬ 
ernment in this country.” 29 Again, he says in general 
orders: “They [the Confederate soldiers] cannot barter 
manhood for peace nor the right of self-government for 
life or property. . . . Let us then oppose constancy to 
adversity, fortitude to suffering, and courage to danger, 
with the firm assurance that He who gave freedom to 
our fathers will bless the efforts of their children to pre¬ 
serve it.” 30 And at the close of the war he is said to 
have expressed the same feeling quite as explicitly and 
solemnly: “We had, I was satisfied, sacred principles 
to maintain and rights to defend, for which we were in 
duty bound to do our best, even if we perished in the 
endeavor.” 31 

As we read these passionate confessions of faith, we 
come almost to look upon Lee as one of the great 
martyrs of liberty, one of the heroic champions of free 
democracy and popular government. And then we re¬ 
flect a moment and say to ourselves, was not this man 
fighting for negro slavery? It cannot be disputed that 
he was. Southern writers may quibble as they please 
about slavery not being the cause of the war. Nobody 
denies that there were other causes, many of them, causes 
lying deep in difference of climate, difference of breed- 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


40 

ing, difference of local temperament. But no one can 
seriously maintain that any of those other causes or all 
of them together could have led to any sectional quarrel 
that might not have been easily settled, if it had not 
been for the dark phantom, the terrible midnight incubus 
of slavery. As we look back now, we all see that, in the 
words attributed to Lincoln, “the people of the North 
were as responsible for slavery as the people of the 
South,” 32 and that honest, noble, pure spirits could ad¬ 
vocate it as well as oppose it. We are all ready to sym¬ 
pathize with the words which Lincoln actually wrote: 
“You think slavery is right and ought to be extended ; 
we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. For this, 
neither has any just occasion to be angry with the 
other.” 33 Nay, more, the abolitionists of the sixties went 
at their problem gayly, confident that if the negro were 
once free, all would be well. Forty years have taught 
us better, until some are almost ready to cry out that the 
South was right and the North wrong. It is not so. The 
future must take care of itself. The nineteenth century 
made many mistakes. But it showed once for all that 
the modern world can never again have anything to do 
with slavery. “I advise Senators to let the humane cur¬ 
rent of an advancing and Christian civilization spread 
over this continent,” said Henry Wilson. Senators and 
other persons who fought on the side of slavery had 
their backs to the light and their faces turned toward 
outer darkness. 


THE GREAT DECISION 


4i 

It will immediately be urged that Lee was no advo¬ 
cate of slavery. This cannot be denied. It is true that 
his attitude towards the negro was distinctly the South¬ 
ern attitude, and, it must also be added, that of most 
Northerners who live long in the South. “ I have always 
observed that wherever you find the negro, everything 
is going down around him, and wherever you find the 
white man, you see everything around him improv¬ 
ing.” 34 “You will never prosper with the blacks,” he 
writes to his son after the war, “ and it is abhorrent to a 
reflecting mind to be supporting and cherishing those 
who are plotting and working for your injury and all of 
whose sympathies and associations are antagonistic to 
yours. I wish them no evil in the world — on the con¬ 
trary, will do them every good in my power, and know 
that they are misled by those to whom they have given 
their confidence; but our material, social, and political 
interests are with the whites.” 35 Furthermore, he had no 
sympathy with the Northern abolitionists and believed 
that they were working in utter ignorance of actual con¬ 
ditions as well as with a disposition to meddle where 
they had no legal or moral right to interfere. He even 
went so far as to write, toward the very close of the war, 
that he considered “the relation of master and slave, 
controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christ¬ 
ianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best 
that can exist between the white and black races while 
intermingled as at present in this country.” 36 


42 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


This passage does not’ appear in the Southern bio¬ 
graphies of Lee, and it can be justly interpreted only as 
a partial utterance in view of a most complicated and 
difficult problem. For that Lee himself disliked and de¬ 
tested slavery there can be no possible doubt. The few 
slaves that ever belonged to him personally he set free 
long before the war, and he took time in the very thick 
of his military duties to arrange at the appointed date 
for the emancipation of those who had been left to his 
wife by her father. Before the war, also, he expressed 
himself on the general subject in the most explicit way : 
“ In this enlightened age there are few, I believe, but 
will acknowledge that slavery, as an institution, is a 
moral and political evil in any country.” 37 The very let¬ 
ter from which I quoted above as to the benefits of the 
relation between master and slave was written to urge 
gradual abolition as a reward for faithful military serv¬ 
ice, and some remarks attributed to Lee after the war 
form a valuable comment on his pro-slavery utterance, 
especially in view of all that has come and gone in the 
last forty years. “ The best men of the South have long 
desired to do away with the institution and were quite 
willing to see it abolished. But with them in relation to 
this subject the question has ever been : What will you 
do with the freed people ? That is the serious question 
to-day. Unless some humane course, based upon wisdom 
and Christian principles, is adopted, you do them a great 
injustice in setting them free.” 38 


THE GREAT DECISION 


43 

Yet, after all, in fighting for the Confederacy Lee was 
fighting for slavery, and he must have known perfectly 
well that if the South triumphed and maintained its in¬ 
dependence, slavery would grow and flourish for another 
generation, if not for another century. And it is precisely 
this network of moral conditions that makes his heroic 
struggle so pathetic, so appealing, so irresistibly human. 
For the great tragedies of human life and history come 
from the intermingling of good and evil. And Lee is one 
of the most striking, one of the noblest tragic figures the 
world ever produced. Matthew Arnold says that the 
Puritans, fighting for English liberty, put the human 
spirit in prison for two hundred years. 39 This man, fight¬ 
ing, as he believed, for freedom, for independence, for 
democracy, was fighting also to rivet the shackles more 
firmly on millions of his fellow men. A most striking 
passage in Burke’s “Conciliation” brings out this con¬ 
trast with a prophetic force which no after-comment can 
equal: — 

There is, however, a circumstance attending these colonies, 
which, in my opinion, fully counterbalances this difference 
and makes the spirit of liberty still more high and haughty 
than in those to the northward. It is, that in Virginia and the 
Carolinas they have a vast multitude of slaves. Where this is 
the case in any part of the world, those who are free are by far 
the most proud and jealous of their freedom. . . . Not seeing 
there, that freedom, as in countries where it is a common 
blessing, and as broad and general as the air, may be united 
with much abject toil, with great misery, with all the exterior 


44 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


of servitude, liberty looks, amongst them, like something that 
is more noble and liberal. I do not mean, Sir, to commend the 
superior morality of this sentiment, which has at least as 
much pride as virtue in it; but I cannot alter the nature of 
man. The fact is so; and these people of the Southern colonies 
are much more strongly and with a higher and more stubborn 
spirit attached to liberty than those to the northward. 40 

In Lee, no pride, but virtue all; not liberty for himself 
alone, but for others, for every one. And this it is that 
makes the tragedy of his career so large, so fatal, so 
commanding in its grandeur. 

One element which, since Hamlet, we consider pecul¬ 
iarly tragic, is, however, wanting in Lee. There is no 
trace of irresolution in him, no faltering, no looking 
back. We have indirectly from Mrs. Lee her account of 
the way in which the first decision was made. “The 
night his letter of resignation was to be w r ritten, he 
asked to be left alone for a time, and while he paced the 
chamber above, and was heard frequently to fall upon 
his knees and engage in prayer for divine guidance, she 
waited and watched and prayed below. At last he came 
down, calm, collected, almost cheerful, and said, ‘ Well, 
Mary, the question is settled. Here is my letter of resig¬ 
nation and a letter I have written to General Scott.’ ” 41 
The question was settled — finally, and in all his corre¬ 
spondence or recorded conversation there is nothing 
to indicate regret or even further doubt. “Trusting in 
God, an approving conscience, and the aid of my fellow 


THE GREAT DECISION 


45 

citizens/’ he accepted the command of the armies of Vir¬ 
ginia ; and as the war progressed, his zeal for the cause 
and loyalty to his high ideals seemed to be ever on the 
increase. 

Not that he showed any bitterness towards the enemy. 
Or at least it is only at moments that the unavoidable 
horror of war wrings from him a word of reproach or 
condemnation, as when he says of the obstruction of 
Charleston Harbor, “ This achievement, so unworthy of 
any nation, is the abortive expression of the malice and 
revenge of a people which it wishes to perpetuate by 
rendering more hateful a day memorable in their calen¬ 
dar,” 42 or speaks of the “ savage and brutal policy which 
he [Milroy] has proclaimed, which leaves us no alterna¬ 
tive but success or degradation worse than death, if we 
would save the honor of our families from pollution, our 
social system from destruction.” 43 His general tone in 
referring to “ those people,” as he almost always called 
the Northern soldiers, is wholly in the spirit of his own 
admirable saying, “the better rule is to judge our adver¬ 
saries from their standpoint, not from ours.” 44 

But over and over again, to his family, to his friends, 
to his army, he expresses his pride in the cause he has 
adopted, his absolute belief in its nobility and justice, 
his unyielding determination to fight for it, so long as 
any fighting is possible. “ Let each man resolve that the 
right of self-government, liberty, and peace shall find in 
him a defender,” he says to his soldiers in the early 


46 LEE THE AMERICAN 

days, 46 and commends to them “ the sacred cause, dearer 
than life itself, of defending the honor and integrity of 
the State.” 46 At the climax of the struggle, with the 
bright hope of success before him, he consoles them for 
their dangers : “ The country consents to the loss of such 
men as these and the gallant soldiers who fell with them, 
only to secure the inestimable blessings they died to 
obtain.” 47 And at the last bitter parting he assures them 
that “You will take with you the satisfaction that pro¬ 
ceeds from the consciousness of duty faithfully per¬ 
formed.” 48 So, in reviewing his own private conduct, 
when all is over, he cannot blame his choice or regret 
his decision. “ All that the South has ever desired was 
that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should 
be preserved and that the government as originally or¬ 
ganized, should be administered in purity and truth.” 49 
Or again, more solemnly, “ I did only what my duty de¬ 
manded. I could have taken no other course without 
dishonor. And if it were all to be done over again, I 
should act in precisely the same manner.” 50 

Finally, it is to be noted that Lee’s conduct from be¬ 
ginning to end was absolutely free from all thought of 
personal credit or advantage. He declined the highest 
standing in his profession for what was, to say the least, 
a dim uncertainty. He was fifty-four years old, and such 
dreams of glory as he may ever have cherished had 
doubtless long faded in the hope of peace. One consider¬ 
ation, and one only, the desire to do right, prompted him 


THE GREAT DECISION 


47 

in all he undertook and in all he accomplished. Doubt¬ 
less, the same thing might be said of many a private 
soldier, North and South both ; but Lee’s exalted posi¬ 
tion gives his action a typical significance which cannot 
attach to that of every one. And when the fearful failure 
came, when all things were sinking to wreck and ruin 
about him, though his heart was torn for the sufferings 
of his people, for his own lot there was nothing but 
superb tranquillity, a calm, unyielding, heroic self-control, 
which rested upon the consciousness that he had done 
what man could do and all the rest was God’s. He 
might have used the splendid words of Demosthenes: 
“ I say that if the event had been manifest to the whole 
world beforehand, not even then ought Athens to have 
forsaken this course, if Athens had any regard for her 
glory, or for her past, or for the ages to come.” But he 
had words of his own, as apt, perhaps as splendid, as 
those of Demosthenes, the well-known and often quoted, 
“ Duty is the sublimest word in the language ” ; 51 the less 
well-known but not less noble, “ There is a true glory 
and a true honor, the glory of duty done, the honor of 
the integrity of principle ” ; 62 best of all the grandly tragic 
phrase, addressed to his son, which forms the most pre¬ 
fect comment on his own career, “ I know that wherever 
you may be placed, you will do your duty. That is all 
the pleasure, all the comfort, all the glory we can enjoy 
in this world.” 53 


Ill 


LEE AND DAVIS 

V 

It will hardly be disputed that Lee and Davis are by far 
the most prominent figures in the history of the Confed¬ 
eracy. Stephens and Benjamin, Johnston and Beaure¬ 
gard, are not to be named with them. Jackson might 
have been a conspicuous third; but his premature death 
left him only a peculiar and separate glory. 

Material, of a sort, for the study of Davis’s character 
is more than abundant. His own work, “ The Rise and 
Fall of the Confederate Government,” is one of the nu¬ 
merous books that carefully avoid telling us what we 
wish-to know. Half of it is ingenious argument on the 
abstract dead questions at issue. The other half is a his¬ 
tory of military matters which others have told often and 
told better. Of administrative complications and diffi¬ 
culties, of the internal working of the Confederate Gov¬ 
ernment, of personalities at Richmond and the Rich¬ 
mond atmosphere, of the inner life and struggles of the 
man himself, hardly a word. Happily we have Mrs. Da¬ 
vis’s “ Life” of her husband, which shows him complete, 
if not exactly as Mrs. Davis saw him. We have other 
biographies of less value, innumerable references in let¬ 
ters and memoirs of friends and enemies, and the con¬ 
stant comments of the public press. And we have the 



JEFFERSON DAVIS 








































LEE AND DAVIS 


49 

immense mass of correspondence in that national por¬ 
trait gallery, the “Official Records,” where the great — 
and little — men of a generation have drawn their own 
likenesses with an art as perfect as it is unconscious. 

Davis, then, was a scholar and a thinker, and to some 
extent he took the bookish view of life, that it can be 
made what we wish it to be. Compromise with men and 
things was to be avoided, if possible. He was an orator, 
a considerable orator, after the fashion of the mid-nine¬ 
teenth century, which bores us now, at any rate in the 
reading. The orator in politics, though a naturally re¬ 
curring figure in a democratic society, is too apt to be 
an unsatisfactory one, — witness Cicero. Davis never 
laid aside his robes of rhetoric in public. I doubt if he 
did in private. I think he wore them in his soul. His 
passion was rhetoric, his patriotism was rhetoric, his wit 
was rhetoric, perfectly genuine, there is no doubt of 
that, but always falling into a form that would impress 
others — and himself. He told Dr. Craven that he could 
not “ conceive how a man so oppressed with care as Mr. 
Lincoln was could have any relish for such pleasant¬ 
ries.” 1 There you have the difference between the two. 

Doubtless Davis had many excellent practical qual¬ 
ities. For one thing, he had pluck, splendid pluck, moral 
and physical. It was indeed, I imagine, rather pluck of 
the high-strung, nervous order than the cool, collected 
calmness of Lee or Grant. There again is the difference 
in types. Nevertheless, Davis’s pluck is beyond ques- 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


5o 

tion. He had consistency, too, knew his ideas and stuck 
to them, had persistency. “ He was an absolutely frank, 
direct, and positive man,” said General Breckinridge . 2 
And he was sincere in his purposes, as well as consist¬ 
ent. “As God is my judge, I never spoke from any 
other motive [than conviction],” he told Seward . 3 Be¬ 
yond question he told the truth. He was unselfish, too, 
thoughtful of others and ready to make sacrifices for 
them. “ He displayed more self-abnegation than any 
other human being I have ever known,” says one of his 
aides 4 and the statement is abundantly confirmed. 

But in everything he was a nervous sensitive, which 
is a terrible handicap to a leader of men. He suffered 
always with nervous dyspepsia and neuralgia and 
“came home from his office fasting, a mere mass of 
throbbing nerves and perfectly exhausted.” 5 He shrank 
from the sight of every form of suffering, even in imagin¬ 
ation. When the “ Babes in the Wood” was first read 
to him, a grown man, in time of sickness, he would not 
endure the horror of it . 6 His sympathy with the op¬ 
pressed was also intense, “so that,” says Mrs. Davis, “it 
was a difficult matter to keep order with children and 
servants .” 7 He was keenly susceptible to the atmo¬ 
sphere about him, especially to the moods of people, “ ab¬ 
normally sensitive to disapproval. Even a child’s disap¬ 
proval discomposed him.” 8 And Mrs. Davis admits that 
this sensitiveness and acute feeling of being misjudged 
made him reserved and unapproachable. It made him 


LEE AND DAVIS 


5i 


touchy as to his dignity, also, and there are stories of 
his cherishing a grudge for some insignificant or imag¬ 
ined slight and punishing the author of it . 9 

The same sensitive temperament appears in Davis’s 
spiritual life. That he should seek and find the hand of 
Providence in temporal affairs is surely not to his dis¬ 
credit. But I feel that his religion occasionally intrudes 
at the wrong time and in the wrong way. When his 
enemies represented him as “ standing in a corner tell¬ 
ing his beads and relying on a miracle to save the 
country ,” 10 I know they exaggerated, but I understand 
what they meant. 

Altogether, one of those subtle, fine, high-wrought 
nervous organizations, which America breeds, a trifle too 
fine, consuming in superb self-control too much of what 
ought to be active, practical, beneficent energy. 

It will easily be imagined that such a temper would 
not always get along comfortably with rough, practical, 
imperious military men, accustomed to regard civil au¬ 
thority with contempt. That Davis had had military 
experience himself, both in the field and as Secretary of 
War, did not help matters much, since it greatly in¬ 
creased his own self-confidence. Subordinate officers, 
such as Stuart, Longstreet, and Jackson during the latter 
part of his career, did not have many direct dealings 
with the President. But the independent commanders fall 
generally into two classes, those like Bragg, Pemberton, 
and Hood, who were more or less unfit for their posi- 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


52 

tions and retained them through Davis’s personal favor, 
and those who were able and popular but whom Davis 
could not endure, like Joseph E. Johnston and Beaure¬ 
gard. Albert Sidney Johnston seems to have been both a 
favorite and a great soldier, but untimely death blighted 
Davis’s choice in that instance. 

The quarrel with J. E. Johnston shook the whole fabric 
of the Confederacy, since the omnipotent editors took 
part in it. Johnston was a good general and an honest 
man; but he was surly with a superior and his corres¬ 
pondence and his book are querulous. Davis is not 
querulous and his references to Johnston are always dig¬ 
nified. Mrs. Davis assures us that “in the whole period 
of his official relations to General Johnston I never heard 
him utter a word in derogation.” 11 She tells us also, 
however, that “ every shade of feeling that crossed the 
minds of those about him was noticed and he could not 
bear any one to be inimical to him.” 12 Persons of this 
temper always exaggerate enmity where it exists and 
imagine it where it does not. Another of Mrs. Davis’s 
priceless observations is as to “ the talent for governing 
men without humiliating them, which Mr. Davis had in 
an eminent degree.” 13 Samples of this were doubtless 
the indorsement “insubordinate” on one of Johnston’s 
grumbling letters and the reply to another, “ The 
language of your letter is, as you say, unusual; its argu¬ 
ment and statement utterly one-sided, and its insinua¬ 
tions as unfounded as they are unbecoming.” 14 Compare 


LEE AND DAVIS 


53 

also the indorsement on a letter in which Beauregard, a 
gentleman, an excellent soldier, and a true patriot, who 
had long held independent command, wrote that he was 
perfectly ready to serve under Lee: “ I did not doubt 
the willingness of General Beauregard to serve under 
any general who ranked him. The right of General Lee 
to command would be derived from his superior rank.” 15 

And so we come to the case of Lee, who during the 
last years of the war was universally recognized as the 
greatest general and most popular man in the Confed¬ 
eracy and who held Davis’s confidence and intimate 
affection from the beginning to the end. “ General R. E. 
Lee was the only man who was permitted to enter the 
Cabinet [meetings] unannounced,” says the official who 
secured the privacy of those august assemblies . 16 

How did Lee manage to retain his hold on the Presi¬ 
dent? Pollard, who admired Lee, but detested Davis 
more, says plainly that the general employed “ compli¬ 
ment and flattery.” 17 This is an abuse of words. One 
can no more associate flattery with Lee than with Wash¬ 
ington. Lee respected and admired Davis in many ways. 
With that fine insight into character which was one of 
his strongest points, the general appreciated the Presi¬ 
dent’s peculiarities and adapted himself to them for the 
sake of the cause to which he had devoted his life. Davis 
required deference, respect, subordination. Lee felt that 
these were military duties and he was ready to accord 
them. He defends Davis to others, — “ The President 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


54 

from his position being able to survey all the scenes of 
action, can better decide than any one else.” 18 He defers 
again and again to Davis’s opinion : “ Should you think 
proper to concentrate the troops near Richmond, I 
should be glad if you would advise me.” 19 On many 
occasions he expresses a desire for Davis’s presence in 
the field: “ I need not say how glad I should be if your 
convenience would permit you to visit the army, that I 
might have the benefit of your advice and direction.” 20 
Those know but little of Lee who see in such passages any¬ 
thing but the frank, simple modesty of the man’s nature, 
or who read a double meaning into expressions like the 
following : “ While I should feel the greatest satisfaction 
in having an interview with you and consultation upon 
all subjects of interest, I cannot but feel great uneasiness 
for your safety, should you undertake to reach me.” 21 
The solicitude was perfectly genuine, as we see from 
many charming manifestations of it elsewhere. “ I can¬ 
not express the concern I felt at leaving you in such 
feeble health, with so many anxious thoughts for the • 
welfare of the whole Confederacy weighing upon your 
mind.” 22 And there is no doubt that such sympathetic 
affection held the president more than even the most 
exaggerated military deference. 

At the same time, it is certain that Davis liked to be 
consulted. He had a considerable opinion of his own 
military gifts and would probably have preferred the 
command of the armies in the field to the presidency, 


LEE AND DAVIS 


55 

although Ropes, the best of judges, tells us that he did 
not “show himself the possessor of military ability to 
any notable extent,” 23 and Grant slyly remarks that “ on 
several occasions during the war he came to the relief 
of the Union armies by his superior military genius.” 24 
His jealousy of independent command sometimes ap¬ 
pears even with regard to Lee. “ I have never compre¬ 
hended your views and purposes until the receipt of 
your letter yesterday and now have to regret that I did 
not earlier know all that you have now communicated 
to others.” 25 Perhaps the most delightful instance of 
Davis’s confidence in his own talents as a general is the 
little indiscretion of Mrs. Davis. “ Again and again he 
said [before Gettysburg], ‘ If I could take one wing and 
Lee the other, I think we could between us wrest a vic¬ 
tory from those people .’” 26 One says these things to 
one’s wife; but I doubt if Davis would have wished that 
repeated — yet perhaps he would. 

With all this in mind, it is easy to understand Lee’s 
procedure and to see the necessity as well as the wisdom 
of it. He was never free. In the early days he writes 
almost as Davis’s clerk. To the end his most important 
communications are occasionally inspired by his superior, 
to the very wording. This subordination is trying at 
times to Lee’s greatest admirers. Captain Battine says, 
“ It was the commander-in-chief who had constantly to 
stir up the energy of the president.” 27 Colonel Hender¬ 
son, whose admirable judgment is always to be re- 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


56 

spected, thinks Davis’s policy was the cause of the 
failure to fight on the North Anna instead of at Fred* 
ericksburg, and he adds more generally, “ A true esti¬ 
mate of Lee’s genius is impossible, for it can never be 
known to what extent his designs were thwarted by the 
Confederate Government. Lee served Davis ; Jackson 
served Lee, wisest and most helpful of masters.” 28 It 
seems to me, however, that Lee’s genius showed in 
overcoming Davis as well as in overcoming the enemy. 

One of the most curious instances of Lee’s sensitive 
deference to the president as his military superior has, so 
far as I have discovered, remained unnoticed by all the 
historians and biographers. On August 8, 1863, a month 
after Gettysburg, Lee wrote the beautiful letter in which 
he urged that some one more capable should be put in 
his place (italics mine): — 

I know how prone we are to censure and how ready to blame 
others for the non-fulfillment of our expectations. This is 
unbecoming in a generous people, and I grieve to see its ex¬ 
pression. The general remedy for the want of success in a mili¬ 
tary commander is his removal. I have been prompted by these 
reflections more than once since my return from Pennsyl¬ 
vania to propose to Your Excellency the propriety of selecting 
another commander for this army. I have seen and heard of 
expression of discontent in the public journals at the result of 
the expedition. I do not know how far this feeling extends in 
the army. My brother officers have been too kind to report it, 
and so far the troops have been too generous to exhibit it. It 
is fair, however, to suppose that it does exist, and success is so 


LEE AND DAVIS 


57 


necessary to us that nothing should be risked to secure it. I, 
therefore, in all sincerity, request Your Excellency to take 
measures to supply my place. I do this with the more earnest¬ 
ness because no one is more aware than myself of my inabil¬ 
ity for the duties of my position. I cannot even accomplish 
what I myself desire. How can I fulfill the expectations of 
others ? 29 

It has been, I believe, universally assumed by Lee’s 
biographers that this proposal of resignation was the 
result of his devoted patriotism and of temporary dis¬ 
couragement caused by press and other criticism of the 
Gettysburg failure. Such criticism there doubtless was ; 
but it was so restrained by the deep-rooted confidence in 
Lee’s character and ability that it appears mild in com¬ 
parison with the attacks on Davis himself and on other 
generals. Without any reflection on Lee’s patriotism, 
which needs no defense, I think a more important key 
to his action is to be found in the first sentence of his 
letter : “ Your letters of July 28 and August 2 have been 
received and I have waited for a leisure hour to reply.” 
The letter of July 28 apparently was not printed till 1897 
in the supplementary volumes of the “ Official Records.” 
In it Davis writes (italics mine): — 

Misfortune often develops secret foes and still oftener 
makes men complain. It is comfortable to hold some one 
responsible for one’s discomfort. In various quarters there are 
mutterings of discontent, and threats of alienation are said to 
exist, with preparation for organized opposition. There are 
others who , faithful hut dissatisfied , find an appropriate remedy 


58 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


in the removal of officers who have not succeeded. They have not 
counted the cost of following their advice. Their remedy, to 
be good, should furnish substitutes who would be better than 
the officers displaced. If a victim would secure the success of 
our cause, I would freely offer myself. 30 

It seems of course absurd to suppose that Davis in¬ 
tended any hint here, especially in view of the instant, 
cordial, and affectionate negative which he returned to 
Lee’s suggestion. Yet I think it quite in the character of 
the man to feel that it would be a graceful and respectful 
thing for a beaten commander to take such a step and 
receive presidential clemency. At any rate, if Davis’s 
remarks were not intended as a hint, they show a gross 
lack of tact as addressed to a man in Lee’s situation ; 
and certainly no one can doubt that Lee’s letter was in 
the main the response of his sore and fretted humility to 
what seemed the implied suggestion of his superior. 

It must not, however, for a moment be supposed that 
Lee’s attitude towards Davis or any one else was in any 
way servile. Dignity, not pompous or self-conscious, but 
natural, was his unfailing characteristic. “He was one 
with whom nobody ever wished or ventured to take a 
liberty.” 31 Even little slights he could resent in his quiet 
way. Davis himself records with much amusement that 
he once made some slur at a mistake of the engineers, 
and Lee, who had been trained in that service, replied 
that he “ did not know that engineer officers were more 
likely than others to make such mistakes.” 32 


LEE AND DAVIS 


59 

Furthermore, Lee never hesitated to urge upon the 
president the wants of the army. Over and over again 
he writes, pointing out the terrible need of reinforce¬ 
ments. “ I beg that you will take every practicable 
means to reinforce our ranks, which are much reduced, 
and which will require to be strengthened to their full 
extent to be able to compete with the invigorated force 
of the enemy.” 33 His tone is roundly decided and ener¬ 
getic when he represents the importance of government 
action to repress straggling and disorder. “ I have the 
honor to inclose to you a copy of a letter written on the 
7th instant, which may not have reached you, containing 
suggestions as to the means of preventing them and pun¬ 
ishing the perpetrators. I again respectfully invite your 
attention to what I have said in that letter. Some effect¬ 
ual means of repressing these outrages should be adopted, 
as they are disgraceful to the army and injurious to our 
cause.” 34 As the difficulty of obtaining supplies became 
greater towards the end, although it was notorious that 
they were to be had in various parts of the country, Lee 
did not hesitate to side with the public at large and de¬ 
mand the removal of Davis’s favorite, the commissary- 
general, Northrop; and I have no doubt that this is 
referred to in Davis’s remark to Dr. Craven. “Even 

G en> - } otherwise so moderate and conservative, w r as 

finally induced to join this injurious clamor.” 35 

In general political questions Lee was very reluctant 
to interfere. He did so at times, however. His sugges- 



60 LEE THE AMERICAN 

tions as to finance and as to the military employment of 
negroes are less connected with Davis and belong more 
properly to the discussion of his relations with the Con¬ 
federate Government. But there were matters on which 
he appealed to the president urgently and directly. At 
the time of the first invasion of Maryland, he wrote an 
earnest letter pointing out the desirability of proposals 
for peace. “ The present position of affairs, in my opin¬ 
ion, places it in the power of the Government of the Con¬ 
federate States to propose with propriety to that of the 
United States the recognition of our independence.” 36 
Again, just before the second invasion, he writes to the 
same effect with even more energy. “ Davis had said 
repeatedly that reunion with the North was unthinkable,” 
remarks his latest biographer. “ Lee wrote in effect that 
such assertions, which out of respect to the Executive he 
charged against the press, were short-sighted in the ex¬ 
treme.” Lee’s language is in no way disrespectful, but 
it is very decided. “Nor do I think we should in this 
connection make nice distinction between those who de¬ 
clare for peace unconditionally and those who advocate 
it as a means of restoring the Union, however much we 
may prefer the former. . . . When peace is proposed, it 
will be time enough to discuss its terms, and it is not 
the part of prudence to spurn the proposition in ad¬ 
vance.” 37 

Also, in political matters as affecting military move¬ 
ments there was more or less conflict of opinion between 


LEE AND DAVIS 


61 


the president and his leading general. Lee regretted 
deeply the absence of Longstreet before Chancellorsville. 
Lee was very anxious to be supported by Beauregard 
before Gettysburg. There is no doubt that Lee, all 
through the war, would have preferred a policy of more 
energetic concentration. And if the testimony of Long, 
Gordon, and others is to be accepted as against that of 
Davis himself, Lee would have abandoned Richmond 
toward the close of the struggle, had it not been for the 
decided opposition of the president. 

In all these differences, however, we must note Lee’s 
infinite courtesy and tact in the expression of his views. 
If he had lectured his superior after the fashion in 
which he himself was frequently addressed by Long- 
street, the Army of Northern Virginia would have been 
looking for a commander at a very early stage. Instead 
of this, however decided his opinion, however urgent 
his recommendations, the language, without being undig¬ 
nified, is such as to soothe Davis’s sensitive pride and 
save his love of authority. “ I earnestly commend these 
considerations to the attention of Your Excellency and 
trust that you will be at liberty, in your better judgment, 
and with the superior means of information you possess 
. . . to give effect to them, either in the way I have 
suggested or in such other manner as may seem to you 
more judicious.” 38 

Yet with all his tact and all his delicacy Lee must 
have felt as if he were handling a shy and sensitive 


62 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


horse, who might kick over the traces at any moment, 
with little provocation or none, so touchy was the pre¬ 
sident apt to be at even the slightest suggestion. For in¬ 
stance, Lee advises that General Whiting should be sent 
south. Davis indorses: “Let General Lee order General 
Whiting to report here, and it may then be decided 
whether he will be sent south or not.” 39 Lee objects 
earnestly to the organization of the military courts, offer¬ 
ing to draft a new bill in regard to them. Davis simply 
comments: “I do not find in the law referred to any¬ 
thing which requires the commanding general to refer 
all charges to the military courts.” 40 Davis hears gossip 
about Lee’s expressed opinions and calls him to order 
in the sharpest manner. “ Rumors assumed to be based 
on your views have affected the public mind and it is 
reported obstructs [sic] needful legislation. A little 
further progress will produce panic. If you can spare 
the time, I wish you to come here.” 41 But the most de¬ 
cided snub of all came in connection with the punish¬ 
ment of deserters. Lee felt strongly about this and had 
urged upon Davis and upon the War Office the ruinous 
effects of executive clemency. Finally, Longstreet calls 
attention to the depletion of his command by desertion, 
which he asserts is encouraged by constant reprieval. 
Lee passes on the complaint with the comment: “ De¬ 
sertion is increasing in the army, notwithstanding all my 
efforts to stop it. I think a rigid execution of the law 
is [kindest?] in the end. The great want in our army 


LEE AND DAVIS 63 

is firm discipline.” 42 Seddon refers the matter to Davis 
and he calmly notes: “ When deserters are arrested, 
they should be tried, and if the sentence is remitted, that 
is not a proper subject for the criticism of a military 
commander.” 43 When one reads these things, one is 
reminded of Mrs. Davis’s delightful remark about “ the 
talent for governing men without humiliating them,” 
and one is almost tempted to reverse it. 

That, in spite of these small matters of necessary dis¬ 
cipline, Davis had the most unbounded and sincere affec¬ 
tion for Lee is not open to a moment’s doubt. In the 
early days, when Lee was unpopular, the president sup¬ 
ported him loyally. When the South Carolinians ob¬ 
jected to his being sent to them, Davis said, “ If Lee is 
not a general, then I have none that I can send you.” 44 
And no jealousy of later glory or success prevented the 
repeated expression of a similar opinion. “ General Lee 
was one of the greatest soldiers of the age, if not the 
very greatest of this or any other country.” 45 And the 
praise was as discriminating as it was enthusiastic: 
“General Lee was not a man of hesitation and they mis¬ 
take his character who suppose that caution was his 
vice.” 46 Admiration of the general was, moreover, 
backed up by a solid confidence which is expressed re¬ 
peatedly by Davis himself and by others. “The Presi¬ 
dent has unbounded confidence in Lee’s capacity, modest 
as he is,” says J. B. Jones, at the very beginning of the 
war. 47 “General Lee was now fast gaining the con- 


64 LEE THE AMERICAN 

fidence of all classes; he had possessed that of the Pre¬ 
sident always,” writes Mrs. Davis. 48 “ I am alike happy 
in the confidence felt in your ability and your superiority 
to outside clamor, when the uninformed assume to direct 
the movement of armies in the field,” 49 is one among 
many passages which show unreserved reliance on the 
commander-in-chief. 

Nor was Davis less keenly aware of Lee’s great quali¬ 
ties as a man than of his military superiority. This is 
made abundantly apparent in both speeches and writ¬ 
ings after Lee’s death. The president extols his subord¬ 
inate’s uprightness, his generosity, his utter forgetful¬ 
ness of self and loyal devotion. In the noble eulogy pro¬ 
nounced at the Lee Memorial gathering in 1870 there 
are many instances of such praise, none more striking 
than the account of Lee’s attitude towards the attacks 
made upon him before his popularity was established: 
“Through all this, with a magnanimity rarely equaled, 
he stood in silence, without defending himself or allow¬ 
ing others to defend him.” 50 And besides the general 
commendation there is a note of deep personal feeling 
which is extremely touching. “ He was my friend and 
in that word is included all that I can say of any man.” 51 
I have not met with a single expression on Davis’s part 
of deliberate criticism or fault-finding, and if he did not 
say such things he did not think them, for he was a man 
whose thoughts found their way to the surface in some 
shape sooner or later. 


LEE AND DAVIS 65 

With Lee it is different. About many things we shall 
never know what he really thought. Undoubtedly he 
esteemed and admired Davis; but the expression of 
these feelings does not go beyond kindly cordiality. 
Soon after the war he writes to Early: “ I have been 
much pained to see the attempts made to cast odium 
upon Mr. Davis, but do not think they will be successful 
with the reflecting or informed part of the country.” 62 
After Davis's release from captivity, Lee wrote him a 
letter which is very charming in its old-fashioned court¬ 
esy. “Your release has lifted a load from my heart 
which I have no words to tell. . . . That the rest of 
your days may be triumphantly happy is the sincere and 
earnest wish of your most obedient and faithful friend and 
servant.” 53 Lee is, of course, even less outspoken in 
criticism than in praise of his superior. It is only very 
rarely that we catch a trace of dissatisfaction, as in refer¬ 
ence to the anxiety of the authorities in regard to Rich¬ 
mond : “ The general had been heard to say that Rich¬ 
mond was the millstone that was dragging down the 
army.” 54 In the delightful — if not always perfectly re¬ 
liable— memoirs of General Gordon we get perhaps 
the most explicit statement of what Lee’s feeling about 
the president really was. It was at the time when Davis 
was said to be unwilling to abandon the capital. Lee 
spoke to Gordon in the highest terms of the great quali¬ 
ties of Davis’s character, praised “the strength of his 
convictions, his devotion, his remarkable faith in the 


66 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


possibility of still winning our independence, his uncon¬ 
querable will-power. But,” he added, “ you know that 
the president is very tenacious in opinion and pur¬ 
poses.” 55 

The study of the relations of Lee and Davis grows 
more interesting, as the history of the Confederacy ap¬ 
proaches its tragic close. In 1861, Davis was popular all 
through the country. A small faction would have pre¬ 
ferred another president, but once he was elected the 
support was enthusiastic and general. With difficulties 
and reverses, however, there came — naturally—a change 
of feeling. In the first place, the Confederacy had seceded 
for state rights. Now war powers and state rights did not 
go together. Davis was constantly anxious to have law 
behind him, so anxious that the “ Richmond Whig ” 
sneered at his desire to get a law to back up every act of 
usurpation. But military necessity knows no law and the 
states in time grew restive and almost openly rebellious. 

More than that, there came — also naturally — a bitter 
hostility to Davis himself. “ The people are weary of the 
flagrant mismanagement of the government,” is a mild 
specimen of the sort of thing that abounds in the “ Rich¬ 
mond Examiner.” 56 “ Jefferson Davis now treats all men 
as if they were idiotic insects,” says the “ Charleston 
Mercury.” 57 And Edmund Rhett, who had been disposed 
to hostility from the beginning, told Mrs. Chesnut that 
the president was “conceited, wrong-headed, wrangle- 
some, obstinate— a traitor.” 58 These little amenities were 




LEE AND DAVIS 67 

of course to be expected. Lincoln had to meet them. But 
the Southern opposition seems to have been more wide¬ 
spread than the Northern, and I imagine an election in 
the autumn of 1864 would have defeated Davis decis¬ 
ively. A moderate view of the state of things appears 
in a letter from Forsythe of Mobile to Bragg, January, 
1865: “Men have been taught to look upon the presi¬ 
dent as a sort of inexorably self-willed man who will see 
the country to the devil before giving up an opinion or 
a purpose. ... We cannot win unless we keep up the 
popular heart. Mr. Davis should come down and grapple 
with that heart. He has great qualities for gaining the 
confidence of the people. There are many who would 
leap to his side to fight with and for him and for the 
country, if he would step into the arena and make the 
place for them.” 59 

The question now arises, How far was Davis really 
responsible for this state of things ? Could another, larger, 
abler man have done more than he did, if not have suc¬ 
ceeded where he failed? For there is good evidence that 
the South had men and material resources to have kept 
up the struggle far longer. “Our resources, fitly and 
vigorously employed, are ample,” said Lee himself in 
February, 1865. 60 It was the people who had lost their 
courage, lost their interest, lost their hope — and no won¬ 
der. But could any people have behaved differently? 
Would that people with another leader? “It is not 
the great causes, but the great men who have made 


/ 

68 LEE THE AMERICAN 

history,” says one of the acutest observers of the human 
heart. 

Such discussion would be futile except for its connec¬ 
tion with the character of Davis. In the opinion of his 
detractors, the lost cause would have been won in better 
hands and Pollard’s clever book has spread that opinion 
very widely. Pollard, however, though doubtless sincere 
enough, was Davis’s bitter personal enemy, or at any 
rate wrote as such. The dispassionate observer wifi 
hardly agree at once with his positive conclusions. More 
interesting is the comment of the diary-keeping war- 
clerk, Jones, an infinitely small personage, but with an 
eye many-faceted as an insect’s. Jones was a hearty 
admirer of the president at first, but fault-finding grows 
and, what is more important, the fault-finding is based 
on facts. Davis, says Jones, “is probably not equal to 
the r 61 e he is called upon to play. He has not the broad 
intelligence required for the gigantic measures needed 
in such a crisis nor the health and physique for the labors 
devolving upon him.” 61 

It is difficult, I think, not to agree with this moderate 
statement, unless the emphasis should be placed rather 
on character than on intelligence. Probably the Con¬ 
federacy could never have been saved; but there might 
have been a leader who could have done more to save it 
than Davis. In the first place, the greatest men gather 
able men about them. Professor Hart writes, with jus¬ 
tice : “ President Davis’s cabinet was made up in great 


LEE AND DAVIS 69 

part of feeble and incapable men.'’ 62 Mrs. Chesnut tells 
us that “ there is a perfect magazine of discord and dis¬ 
union in the Cabinet 1” 63 Jones, who had the best oppor¬ 
tunities for observation says : “ Never did such little men 
rule a great people.” 64 And again, “Of one thing I am 
certain, that the people are capable of achieving inde¬ 
pendence, if they only had capable men in all depart¬ 
ments of the government.” 65 Mrs. Chesnut (an admirer 
of Davis in the main) lays her finger on the secret of the 
natter when she says: “He [Toombs] rides too high a 
Yv orse for so despotic a person as Jefferson Davis.” 66 And 
we get further insight, when we learn that in 1862 Davis 
considered making Lee Secretary of War, but thought 
better of it. 67 Perhaps Lee was of more value in the field 
than he would have been in the cabinet; but it is difficult 
to believe that even he could permanently have remained 
Davis’s secretary. 

There are plenty of other indications, besides his choice 
of advisers, to show that Davis, able, brilliant, noble fig¬ 
ure as he was, was over-parted in the enormous r 61 e he 
had to play. He could not always handle men in a way 
to win them, as a great ruler must. In his earlier life we 
read that “ public sentiment had proclaimed that Jeffer¬ 
son Davis is the most arrogant man in the United States 
Senate,” 68 and Mrs. Davis herself tells us, when she first 
meets him, that he “ has a way of taking for granted 
that everybody agrees with him, when he expresses 
an opinion, which offends me.” 69 “ Gifted with some of 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


70 

the highest attributes of a statesman, he lacked the pli¬ 
ancy which enables a man to adapt his measures to the 
crisis,” says his kinsman, Reuben Davis. 70 But the two 
most decisive comments on Davis’s career that I know 
of are made again by Mrs. Davis, certainly with no in¬ 
tention of judging her husband and all the more valu¬ 
able on that account. “ It was because of his supersens¬ 
itive temperament and the acute suffering it caused 
him, I had deprecated his assuming the civil adminis¬ 
tration.” 71 Cromwell, Frederick, Napoleon had not a 
supersensitive temperament which caused them acute 
suffering. And later she writes : “ In the greatest effort 
of his life Mr. Davis failed, from the predominance of 
some of these noble qualities,” 72 failed, that is, not by 
reason of external impossibility, but from causes within 
himself. Pollard could not have said more. Most of us 
would hardly say so much. Mrs. Davis certainly did not 
intend to, yet she knew the facts better than any one else 
in the world. 

Whether another ruler than Davis could have saved 
the country or not, an immense number of people in the 
Confederacy thought that one man could — and that 
man was Lee. Everywhere those who most mistrusted 
the president looked to Lee with confidence and enthus¬ 
iasm. At least as early as June, 1864, it was suggested 
that he should be made dictator. This idea became 
more and more popular. On January 19, 1865, the “Ex¬ 
aminer ” expressed itself editorially as follows : “ There 


LEE AND DAVIS 


7i 

is but one way known to us of curing this evil: it is by 
Congress making a law investing General Lee with ab¬ 
solute military power to make all appointments and di¬ 
rect campaigns. It may, indeed, be said that in this new 
position General Lee would have to relieve generals and 
appoint others and order movements which perhaps 
might not satisfy the strategick acumen of the general 
publick; and how, it might be asked, could he satisfy 
everybody any more than Mr. Davis ? The difference is 
simply that every Confederate would repose implicit 
confidence in General Lee, both in his military skill and 
in his patriotic determination to employ the ablest men, 
whether he liked them or not.” 

This sort of thing could not be very agreeable to Da¬ 
vis, and Mrs. Davis is said by the spiteful Pollard to 
have exclaimed: “ I think I am the person to advise 
Mr. Davis and if I were he, I would die or be hung before 
I would submit to the humiliation.” 73 On January 17, 
however, before the editorial appeared in the “ Exam¬ 
iner,” the legislature of Virginia addressed a respectful 
appeal to the president to make Lee commander-in-chief 
of all the Confederate armies. Davis, knowing his man 
well, replied on the 18th that nothing would suit him 
better, and on the same day wrote to Lee offering him 
the position, thus anticipating the vote of Congress on 
the 23d that a commander-in-chief should be appointed 
by the president, by and with the consent of the Senate. 

It was of course the intention of Congress to take the 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


72 

military control entirely out of Davis’s hands. It was ex* 
pected and hoped that Lee would have agreed to this. 
What would have happened if Lee had done so, or 
what would have happened if such a change could 
have been made at an earlier date, belongs more 
properly to a discussion of Lee’s general relations to 
the Confederate Government and the national policy 
as a whole. To have attempted anything of the sort 
would have meant revolution; for Davis would have 
fought it to the death. As it was, Lee did not hesitate a 
moment. To all suggestions of independent authority he 
returned a prompt and absolute No. The position of 
commander-in-chief he accepted, but he accepted it only 
from the hands of Davis and with the intention of acting 
in every way as his subordinate. “ I am indebted alone 
to the kindness of His Excellency the President for my 
nomination to this high and arduous office and wish I 
had the ability to fill it to advantage. As I have received 
no instructions as to my duties, I do not know what he 
desires me to undertake.” 74 

Thus we see that Lee, from personal loyalty or from a 
broad view of policy, or both, was determined to remain 
in perfect harmony with his chief to the end. After the 
war the general said: “If my opinion is worth any¬ 
thing, you can always say that few people could have 
done better than Mr. Davis. I knew of none that could 
have done as well.” 75 And it is pleasant to feel that in 
all the conflict and agony of that wretched time these 


LEE AND DAVIS 


73 

two noble figures — both lofty and patriotic, if not equally 
so — could work together in the full spirit of Lee’s testi¬ 
mony before the Grand Jury, as reported by himself to 
Davis: “ He said that he had always consulted me when 
he had the opportunity, both in the field and elsewhere; 
that after discussion, if not before, we had always agreed, 
and that therefore he had done, with my consent and 
approval, what he might have done if he had not con¬ 
sulted me.” 76 


IV 


LEE AND THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT 

Virginia seceded on the seventeenth of April, 1861, one 
day previous to Lee’s critical interviews with Blair and 
Scott. On April 23, Lee was invited to appear before the 
state convention and was offered the position of com¬ 
mander-in-chief of the Virginia forces. He accepted in a 
simple and dignified speech, saying, with a sincerity 
which is beyond question, “ I would have much preferred 
that your choice had fallen upon an abler man.” 1 

The newly appointed general at once made ready to 
organize the state troops and prepare for a vigorous de¬ 
fense against invasion. But things moved rapidly, and 
on April 25, Virginia joined the Confederacy. What Lee 
thought of this step and what his opinions at this time 
were in regard to the organization and future policy of 

the Confederate Government is in no wav revealed to us. 

* 

But Alexander H. Stephens, the Confederate vice-presi¬ 
dent and commissioner to secure Virginia’s adhesion, 
has given a most striking picture of Lee’s perfect will¬ 
ingness to sacrifice his own position and prospects to the 
best interests of his state. 

Stephens had an interview with Lee. “ General Lee 
heard me quietly, understood the situation at once, and 
saw that he alone stood between the Confederacy and 


THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT 75 

his State. The members of the convention had seen at 
once that Lee .vas left out of the proposed compact that 
was to make Virginia one of the Confederate States, and 
I knew that one word, or even a look of dissatisfaction, 
from him would terminate the negotiations with which I 
was intrusted. . . . General Lee did not hesitate for one 
moment, ... he declared that no personal ambition or 
emolument should be considered or stand in the way. 
. . . Nominally, General Lee lost nothing; but practically, 
for the time being, he lost everything. The Government 
moved to Richmond, and Mr. Davis directed General 
Lee to retain his command of the Virginia troops, which 
was really to make him recruiting and drill inspector.” 2 
In this way Lee worked in more or less subordinate or 
inconspicuous positions during the whole first year of 
the war, and it was not till the spring of 1862, by the 
wounding of Johnston, that he was given a fair chance 
to display his military ability. 

We have seen that one of the most striking elements 
in Lee’s attitude towards Davis was the instinct of sub¬ 
ordination, of subjection of military to civil authority. 
The same thing appears everywhere in the general’s 
broader relation to the Confederate Government as a 
whole. Politics were not his business. Even policy was 
not his business. Let others plan and order ; he would 
execute. Wellington said to Greville that while “ un¬ 
questionably Napoleon was the greatest military genius 
that ever existed,” “he had advantages which no other 


/ 

76 LEE THE AMERICAN 

man ever possessed in the unlimited means at his com¬ 
mand and his absolute power and irresponsibility.” 2 
When one turns from Napoleon’s dispatches to Lee’s, 
one is instantly struck with the difference in this regard. 
Napoleon says, Go here ; do this ; let these troops be on 
this spot at that date. They are there. It is done. Lee 
suggests cautiously, insinuates courteously. But his 
greatest art is to keep still. It is very rare that he goes 
so far as the reported humorous saying, “ that he had 
got a crick in his neck from looking over his shoulder 
towards Richmond.” Such military command as is dele¬ 
gated to him he will exercise absolutely, but he draws 
with watchful care the line between his responsibility and 
that of others and is at all times reluctant to overstep it. 

An interesting instance of this tendency to disclaim 
all interference with the civil authority is Lee’s attitude 
toward prisoners of war. While they are on the field, 
they are in his charge. “ He told me that on several 
occasions his commissary general had come to him after 
a battle and reported that he had not rations enough 
both for prisoners and the army, . . . and he had always 
given orders that the wants of the prisoners should be 
first attended to.” 4 Yet even here mark the reservation, 
when the question becomes more general (italics mine): 
“ While I have no authority in the case , my desire is that 
the prisoners shall have equal rations with my men.” 5 
Once in the military prisons, the captives were the care 
of the War Department, not Lee’s. When he testified 


THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT 77 

before the Reconstruction Committee, he was asked, 
“Were you not aware that those prisoners were dying 
from cold and starvation?” He answered : “ I was not. 
. . . As regards myself, I never had any control over 
the prisoners except those that were captured on the field 
of battle. Those it was my business to send to Richmond 
to the provost marshal. In regard to their disposition 
afterwards I had no control. I never gave an order about 
it.” 6 The most curious point in this matter of prisoners 
of war is Lee’s correspondence with Grant, in October, 
1864, as to recaptured slaves. 7 It is curious as a piece of 
argument in which, given the premises, both sides were 
logically right. It is still more curious when we find that 
Lee, while appearing to speak his own mind, is in real¬ 
ity only a mouthpiece, a department clerk, writing at 
the dictation of Seddon, that is, probably, of Davis. 

But no matter how submissive a man may be, no mat¬ 
ter how rigorously trained in military discipline, he can¬ 
not command a great army through a great disastrous 
war in a republic and not meddle with things that do 
not concern him. What does concern him and what 
does not? It is thus that we see Lee forced to advise 
and even to dictate sharply to his superiors, more and 
more as the struggle goes on. In matters semi-military 
or affecting other military departments, not Lee’s own, 
this was inevitable. As at the North, the newspapers 
were troublesome in telling what they should not, and 
Lee begs the Secretary of War to control them. “Iam 


78 LEE THE AMERICAN 

particularly anxious that the newspapers should not give 
the enemy notice of our intention.” 8 “I beg you will 
take the necessary steps to prevent in future the giving 
publicity in this way to our strength and position.” 9 

A commander in the field may do his best to preserve 
discipline, but he is terribly hampered when the War 
Department permits all sorts of details, furloughs, and 
transfers, and is lenient to desertion. Again and again 
Lee is forced to protest vigorously against abuses of this 
nature. 

A general may wish to confine himself to his own 
sphere of responsibility; but movements in the northeast 
are dependent on movements in the southwest and 
strengthening one command means weakening another. 
Therefore Lee is brought, as it were against his will, to 
make suggestions and requests as to Bragg in Tennessee 
and Johnston in Georgia. “I think that every effort 
should be made to concentrate as large a force as poss¬ 
ible under the best commander to insure the discomfiture 
of Grant’s army [in the west].” 10 He writes to Bragg 
for more men; “ unless they are sent to me rapidly, it 
may be too late.” He urges upon Seddon the utmost 
activity in general measures of defense: “ Whatever in¬ 
convenience and even hardship may result from a vigor¬ 
ous and thorough preparation for the most complete 
defense we can make will be speedily forgotten in the 
event of success or amply repaid by the benefit such a 
course will confer upon us in the case of misfortune.” 11 


THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT 79 

/ 

The best general can do nothing with the best army, 
unless it is fed and clothed; and food and clothing — 
the accumulation, the transportation, the distribution — 
depend upon the energy and capacity of the Govern¬ 
ment. Lee loved his army as if they were his children. 
He knew they were neither clothed nor fed. He was by 
no means satisfied that the people at Richmond were 
either energetic or capable. “ As far as I can judge, the 
proper authorities in Richmond take the necessities of 
this army very easily,” he writes in February, 1863. 12 
How could a commander give his best thought to fight¬ 
ing, when he saw but one day’s food before him ? “We 
have rations for the troops to-day and to-morrow. I hope 
a new supply arrived last night, but I have not yet 
had a report. Every exertion should be made to supply 
the depots at Richmond and at other points. All pleasure 
travel should cease and everything be devoted to neces¬ 
sary wants.” 13 Sometimes he feels that other armies are 
preferred to his and protests vigorously. “ I have under¬ 
stood, I do not know with what truth, that the armies of 
the West and that in the Department of South Carolina 
and Georgia are more bountifully supplied with pro¬ 
visions. ... I think that this army deserves as much 
consideration as either of those named, and, if it can be 
supplied, respectfully ask that it be similarly provided.” 14 
He is convinced that supplies are to be had and does 
not pick — or rather does pick — his words in saying so. 
44 1 know that there are great difficulties in procuring 


8o 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


supplies, but I cannot help thinking that with proper 
energy, intelligence, and experience on the part of the 
Commissary Department, a great deal more could be 
accomplished. There is enough in the country, I believe, 
if it was properly sought for.” 15 And finally, in January, 
1865, he takes the matter into his own hands and issues 
a personal appeal to the farmers of Virginia, which, for 
the time, affords considerable relief. 

From the supplying of armies to other things, equally 
vital, but quite as much civil as military, the steps are 
imperceptible, but taken with an almost logical necessity. 
Lee finds his soldiers refused passage on the railways 
and insists on their claims being recognized. 16 Passports 
are given indiscriminately to persons who convey infor¬ 
mation to the enemy. 17 Lee exerts his authority to con¬ 
trol the practice. The illegal traffic in cotton and tobacco 
is tolerated by the Government for its own purposes. 
Lee gives assistance and advice as to the regulation of 
such traffic. 18 The greatest difficulty, of all the many 
difficulties of the Confederacy, was perhaps that of pro¬ 
perly managing its finances. Lee has a word about this 
also, writing to urge the authorities to make treasury 
notes a legal tender, 19 and elsewhere, in connection with 
the much desired reduction of the currency, suggesting 
payment for certain consignments of wood in Confeder¬ 
ate bonds. 20 

Political even more than military was the nice ques¬ 
tion of retaliation, which was made the subject of hot 


THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT 81 

dispute by persons in authority and out of it. Critics of 
the administration 21 attacked its lenient policy, even to 
the point of suggesting that Davis opposed violent 
measures because he wished to keep well with the North 
in view of possible defeat. In extreme cases Lee does 
not hesitate to order prompt retaliatory action. “ I have 
directed Colonel Mosby, through his adjutants, to hang 
an equal number of Custer’s men in retaliation for those 
executed by him.” 22 But as to the general principle he 
is thoroughly in sympathy with Davis, both on grounds 
of humanity and on grounds of policy. “ I differ in my 
ideas from most of our people on the subject of retali¬ 
ation. Sometimes I know it to be necessary, but it should 
not be resorted to at all times, and in our case policy 
dictates that it should be avoided whenever possible.” 23 
Lee here frankly and naturally admits that his inva¬ 
sion proclamations, so lauded by Southern writers, were 
founded as much on common sense as on lofty principle. 
One can admire the noble tone and still more the rigid 
enforcement of those proclamations, without forgetting 
that Napoleon also said to his soldiers in Vienna, “ Let 
us treat the poor peasants with kindness and be generous 
to this loyal people who have so many claims to our 
esteem ; let us not be puffed up by our success, but see 
in it another proof of the divine justice which punishes 
ingratitude and treachery.” 24 

Although Lee does not hesitate to go outside of his 
own peculiar province in many of these special instances, 


82 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


it is very rare indeed to find him making any general 
criticism of the civil authorities. The following remarks 
as to the Confederate Congress have, therefore, a pecul¬ 
iar interest and significance : “ What has our Congress 
done to meet the emergency, I may say extremity, in 
which we are placed ? As far as I know, concocted bills 
to exempt a certain class of men from service, and to 
transfer another class in service, out of active service, 
where they hope never to do service. Among the thou¬ 
sand applications of Kentuckians, Marylanders, Alabam¬ 
ians, and Georgians, etc., to join native regiments out of 
this army, who ever heard of their applying to enter 
regiments in it, when in face of the enemy? I hope 
Congress will define w r hat makes a man a citizen of 
a State.” 25 

The most striking of all Lee’s incursions into the realm 
of civil government was his effort, toward the very end 
of the war, to have the negroes enlisted as soldiers. The 
measure, was, of course, in one sense purely military; 
but it affected so intimately the social organization and 
the ethical theories on which the whole Confederacy was 
founded that the military significance of it was almost 
dwarfed by the political. As Pollard justly points out, it 
seemed to imply an equality between the tw r o races 
which was utterly repugnant to all Southern feeling on 
the subject, and nothing shows more clearly Lee’s im¬ 
mense influence than the fact that he was able to per¬ 
suade his countrymen to accept his view. All his argu- 


THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT 83 

ments are summed up in a clear and forcible letter to 
Hunter, 26 — otherwise extremely important as showing 
Lee’s general position as to slavery,—and in response 
to this Congress voted briefly “ that the General-in-Chief 
be and hereby is invested with the full power to call into 
the service of the Confederate Government, to perform 
any duty to which he may assign them, so many of the 
able-bodied slaves within the Confederate Government 
as, in his judgment, the exigencies of the public service 
require.” 27 The comment of the “ Examiner ” on this is 
intensely interesting as probably summing up the opinion 
of hundreds of thousands of Lee’s fellow citizens. After 
expressing frankly grave doubts as to the expediency of 
the measure, the editorial concludes, in words of almost 
startling solemnity, “ This clothes him with great power, 
and loads him with heavy responsibility. If he is willing 
to wield that power and shoulder that responsibility, in 
the name of God, let him have them.” 28 

In the name of God, let Lee save us, if he will: no one 

/ 

else can. There is no doubt that this was the spirit of a 
majority of Southerners in February, 1865. There is no 
doubt that this was the spirit which led to his being 
offered practically the military dictatorship by Congress. 
“ The ablest officers of the Confederate States,” says the 
“Examiner,” “would, we feel assured, gladly see the 
supreme direction of their conduct placed in the hands 
of General Lee, and would receive his orders with pleas¬ 
ure. All citizens, and more emphatically, all soldiers, 


84 LEE THE AMERICAN 

* 

now know . . . that the one thing needful to fill the 
army with enthusiasm, and to inspire the people for 
new effort, is to feel that our military force is to be 
wielded by one capable hand and directed by one calm, 
clear intelligence.” 29 Lee, however, absolutely refused 
to violate his subordination to the president in any way, 
and according to Pollard “ went so far as to declare to 
several members of the Richmond Congress that what¬ 
ever might be Davis’s errors, he was yet constitutionally 
the president, and that nothing could tempt himself to 
encroach upon prerogatives which the constitution had 
bestowed upon its designated head.” 30 

What could an ambitious, unscrupulous man have ac¬ 
complished in that emergency, or even a patriot who 
would have been willing to override scruple for the good 
of his country ? Would Napoleon or Cromwell have said 
to Davis, “You may do what I want or go,” have gone 
direct to Congress and enforced his will, have swept 
fraud and incompetence out of the executive depart¬ 
ments, have handled the whole military force like one 
great machine and so concentrated it as to accomplish 
results which seemed at that late hour impossible? “Of 
one thing I am certain,” wrote in January, 1865, the 
diarist Jones, who had the very best opportunities of 
forming an opinion, “ that the people are capable of 
achieving independence, if they only had capable men 
in all departments of the government.” 31 In any case 
Lee preferred to remain the loyal servant of the civil 


THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT 85 

authority, which was left to work out its political problems 
as best it could. 

What interests us in our study of Lee’s character is 
the motive which led him not only to this final refusal, 
but to his general attitude of non-interference with the 
Confederate Government. It has often been suggested 
—- and Grant was of this opinion 32 — that he was con¬ 
sistent in his state loyalty and cared for Virginia only, 
not for the Confederacy as a whole, preferring to do his 
fighting to the end upon his native soil. The writer of 
the excellent “ Nation ” review of Long’s “ Life ” 
(Cox?), 33 basing his conclusions on the Townsend anec¬ 
dote which I have quoted in a previous chapter, 34 holds 
that Lee had little regard for the Confederate cause from 
beginning to end. Some suspicion of the kind was un¬ 
doubtedly at the bottom of Pollard’s harsh charges. 
“The fact was that, although many of General Lee’s 
views were sound, yet, outside of the Army of Northern 
Virginia, and with reference to the general affairs of the 
Confederacy, his influence was negative and accom¬ 
plished absolutely nothing.” 35 Again, “ His most notable 
defect was that he never had or conveyed any inspira¬ 
tion in the war.” 36 And Pollard quotes from a Rich¬ 
mond paper after the Wilderness, “ When will he [Lee] 
speak? Has he nothing to say? What does he think 
of our affairs ? Should he speak, how the country would 
hang upon every word that fell from him!” 37 

I believe that this theory of Lee’s lack of interest in 


86 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


the Confederacy is utterly false. Of course he remained 
a Virginian and would have followed his state out of the 
later union as he had followed her out of the earlier; but 
while Virginia was Confederate, he faithfully merged 
his duty to her in the broader loyalty. “ They do injus¬ 
tice to Lee who believe he fought only for Virginia,” 
said Davis. “He was ready to go anywhere for the 
good of his country.” 38 The cheerful energy which the 
general showed when sent to South Carolina in the early 
part of the war confirms this, as does passage after pas¬ 
sage of his correspondence. “ Let it be distinctly under¬ 
stood by every one that Charleston and Savannah are 
to be defended to the last extremity. If the harbors 
are taken, the cities are to be fought street by street, 
house by house, so long as we have a foot of ground 
to stand upon.” 39 A writer in the Southern Historical 
Papers asserts that “those whose privilege it was to 
hear the great chieftain talk most freely of the cause for 
which he fought, bear the most emphatic witness that 
it was ‘the independence of the South,’ ‘the triumph 
of constitutional freedom,’ for which he struggled so 
nobly.” 40 

But by far the most striking and interesting testimony 
to Lee’s thorough espousal of Confederate nationality 
and sober, earnest grasp of the whole problem before 
him is his conversation with Imboden near the begin¬ 
ning of the struggle. General Imboden declares that his 
report is “almost literal,” but for our purpose its sub- 


THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT 87 

stantial correctness is all-sufficient (italics mine). “ Our 
people are brave and enthusiastic and are united in de¬ 
fense of a just cause. I believe we can succeed in estab¬ 
lishing our independence, if the people can be made to 
comprehend at the outset that they must endure a longer 
war and far greater privations than our forefathers did 
in the Revolution of 1776. We will not succeed until the 
financial power of the North [the political insight of this 
is extremely noteworthy] is completely broken. . . . The 
conflict will be mainly in Virginia. She will be the 
Flanders of America before this war is over and her 
people must be prepared for this. If they resolve at once 
to dedicate their lives and all they possess to the cause 
of constitutional government and Southern independence 
and to suffer without yielding as no other people have 
been called upon to suffer in modern times, we shall, 
with the blessing of God, succeed in the end; but when 
it will be no man can foretell. I wish I could talk to every 
man , woman , and child in the South now and impress 
them with these views S 41 

No. If Lee was modest, it was from genuine modesty. 
If he shunned burdens and responsibilities, it was be¬ 
cause he truly felt himself unable to undertake them. It 
is a most curious point in the man’s character, this nice 
avoidance of duties that did not belong to him. “ Be 
content to do what you can for the well-being of what 
properly belongs to you,” he writes to Mrs. Lee. “ Com¬ 
mit the rest to those who are responsible.” 42 It is in this 


88 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


spirit that he is eager to make clear to the Reconstruction 
Committee that the Government’s foreign policy was no 
concern of his. “ I know nothing of the policy of the 
government; I had no hand or part in it; I merely ex¬ 
press my own opinion.” 43 Even in military matters he 
is careful to draw the sharpest line between his own task 
and that of his subordinates: “ I think and I work with 
all my power to bring my troops to the right place at 
the right time ; then I have done my duty.” 44 He is so 
careful that at times one feels a certain sympathy with 
the otherwise negligible Northrop, when he complains: , 
“There is, in my judgment, no isolation of the responsi¬ 
bility in any of the machinery of war.” 45 

One wonders that a man could be so sensitive about 
the limits of responsibility and yet command absolutely 
for three years an army of fifty to a hundred thousand 
men, lead them again and again to victory, make such 
terrible decisions as that of Jackson’s movement at 
Chancellorsville and the attack at Gettysburg. And then 
one reflects that it was probably just this clear sense of 
what others ought to do and should be left to do that 
made Lee’s power. Smaller men fret over executive de¬ 
tails or rush readily into what they do not understand. 
He knew his own training, his own character, knew his 
own work and did it, letting others do theirs, if they 
could. It is with this explanation in view that we should 
read his remarkable colloquy with B. H. Hill, toward the 
close of the war, as reported by Long : — 


THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT 89 

4 

‘‘General, I wish you would give us your opinion as to 
the propriety of changing the seat of Government and going 
farther South.” 

“That is a political question, Mr. Hill, and you politicians 
must determine it. I shall endeavor to take care of the army 
and you politicians must make the laws and control the 
Government.” 

“Ah, General,” said Mr. Hill, “but you will have to change 
that rule and form and express political opinions; for if we 
establish our independence, the people will make you Mr. 
Davis’s successor.” 

“Never, sir,” he replied, with a firm dignity that belonged 
only to Lee; “that I will never permit. Whatever talents I 
may possess (and they are but limited) are military talents, 
my education and training are military. I think the military 
and civil talents are distinct, if not different, and full duty in 
either sphere is about as much as one man can qualify him¬ 
self to perform. I shall not do the people the injustice to 
accept high civil office, with whose questions it has not been 
my business to become familiar.” 

“Well, but, General, history does not sustain your view. 
Caesar and Frederick of Prussia and Bonaparte were great 
statesmen as well as great generals.” 

“And great tyrants,” he promptly replied. “ I speak of the 
proper rule in Republics, where I think we should have 
neither military statesmen nor political generals.” 

“But Washington was both and yet not a tyrant.” 

With a beautiful smile he responded, “Washington was an 
exception to all rules and there was none like him.” 46 

Probably Lee underestimated his aptitude for civil 
government, at any rate in comparison with that of 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


90 

others. The patience, the foresight, above all the tact in 
handling men, which made him a great general, would 
have made him a great president also. But taking all 
things into account, I doubt whether he could have done 
more for the Confederacy than he did, or whether even 
Washington would have attempted to do more. 

Granted, however, that Lee’s modesty was the chief 
cause of his not interfering further in political action, I 
think another consideration must have influenced him 
to some extent. What possible future had the Confeder¬ 
ate Government ? It is really remarkable that in all the 
mass of Southern — or, for that matter, Northern — his¬ 
torical writing so little notice is taken of this vital ques¬ 
tion. Supposing the North had given in and let the 
South go free, what would have happened? Few soldiers 
or statesmen seem to have troubled themselves much 
about the matter, so far as I can find out. It may be said 
that neither did the patriots of the Revolution trouble 
themselves about the future. But the case was different. 
It was a logical necessity, a natural development for 
America to separate from England. Some adjustment 
between the colonies was sure to be found; but even 
with none they would be better free. For the Confederacy 
there would appear to have been but two alternatives. 
A great slave empire might have been formed, central¬ 
ized for necessary strength, supporting a standing army 
of half a million, — not one man more than would have 
been required at any moment to face the military power 


THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT 91 

of the United States, in disputes that would have arisen 
daily over territory, emigration, tariff, and especially 
over slavery complications. Or the absurd incompatibil¬ 
ity of this with all the ideas for which the South origin¬ 
ally went to war would have made itself felt. State rights 
would have asserted themselves everywhere. The Con¬ 
federate group would have broken into smaller groups, 
those again would have dissolved into the original states, 
and these, after a probably brief period of dissension and 
strife, would have been reabsorbed, with humiliation 
and disgust, into the Union from which they had been 
rent away. Is it easy to paint any more satisfactory pic¬ 
ture of the possible future of the Confederate States of 
America ? 47 

Such speculation is useless now. It would seem to 
have been eminently practical and necessary for the men 
who were leading millions of their fellows into such an 
abyss of uncertainty. What did Lee think about it? The 
answer is not simple; for his words on the subject 
are few and noncommittal. Pollard’s accusation, that 
“never, at any time of the war, and not even in the 
companionship of the most intimate friends, on whom 
he might have bestowed his confidence without impru¬ 
dence, did he ever express the least opinion as to the 
chances of the war,” 48 is absurdly exaggerated ; but it is 
true that Lee had little to say about the future of the 
Confederacy. Before the war, before the issue was 
squarely presented, we know that he took much the 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


92 

same view as that I have indicated above. “ Secession is 
nothing but Revolution.” 49 “ I can anticipate no greater 
calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. 
It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain 
of, and I am willing to sacrifice anything but honor for 
its preservation.” 50 Then it seemed to him that either 
honor or the Union must be sacrificed and he did not 
hesitate. But anarchy, but the accumulation of all evils 
must have been clearly before him. Apparently he shut 
his eyes to them. Do the immediate duty of the day. 
Get independence. “The Confederate States have but 
one great object in view, the successful issue of their war 
of independence. Everything worth their possessing de¬ 
pends on that. Everything should yield to its accom¬ 
plishment.” 51 Independence once achieved, the rest 
would take care of itself. Or those who, unlike Lee, had 
the responsibility of civil affairs, would take care of it. 
Or God would take care of it. Here is the key to what 
in much of Lee’s action seems strangely puzzling to 
those whose standpoint is somewhat different from his. 
Do the plain duty. Let the rest go. God will take care 
of it. In this connection a conversation of Lee’s with 
Bishop Wilmer, is immensely significant. 

In what temper of mind he entered this contest, I can speak 
with some confidence, from personal interviews with him soon 
after the commencement of hostilities. 

“Is it your expectation,” I asked, “that the issue of this 
war will be to perpetuate the institution of slavery?” 


THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT 93 

“The future is in the hands of Providence,” he replied. “ If 
the slaves of the South were mine, I would surrender them all 
without a struggle to avert this war.” 

I asked him next upon what his calculations were based in 
so unequal a contest, and how he expected to win success; 
was he looking to divided counsels in the North, or to foreign 
interposition? His answer showed how little he was affected 
by the hopes and fears which agitated ordinary minds. “My 
reliance is in the help of God.” 

“Are you sanguine of the result?” I ventured to inquire. 

“At present I am not concerned with results. God’s will 
ought to be our aim, and I am contented that his designs 
should be accomplished and not mine.” 52 

Naturally the good bishop was charmed; but an or¬ 
dinary mind is tempted to hope that it is not incompat¬ 
ible with the deepest love and admiration for Lee to 
recall the candor and profoundly human truth of Barbe- 
Bleue’s remark : “ C’est en ne sachant jamais ou j’allais 
moi-meme que je suis arrive a conduire les autres.” 

The object of all war is peace, and with the thousand 
doubts and difficulties that were pressing upon him, Lee 
must have been anxious from the beginning to arrive at 
almost any reasonably satisfactory conclusion of hostil¬ 
ities. Here again was a political question, yet one that it 
was almost impossible for a commanding general to 
avoid. In the earlier part of the war Lee urged a peace 
attitude upon Davis, with some apology “in view of its 
connection with the situation of military affairs.” 53 The 
general thought the Northern peace party should be 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


94 

encouraged without fear of that encouragement resulting 
in a reestablishment of the Union. “We entertain no 
such apprehensions, nor doubt that the determination of 
our people for a distinct and independent national exist¬ 
ence will prove as steadfast under the influence of peace¬ 
ful measures as it has shown itself in the midst of war.” 54 

In this, as in a score of other passages, Lee makes it 
perfectly evident that his idea of peace was an ample 
acknowledgment of Confederate independence. Yet it 
has been maintained, and with reliable testimony, that 
towards the close of the struggle he grew ready to accept 
some less radical basis of agreement. The apparent con¬ 
tradiction is perfectly explicable. Lee believed from first 
to last that the people of the South could get free, if they 
really wished to. They had the men, they had the re¬ 
sources, if they would endure and suffer and sacrifice. 
As late as February, 1865, he addressed to Governor 
Vance of North Carolina this most remarkable appeal, — 
remarkable for its earnestness and enthusiasm of convic¬ 
tion in the midst of despair: “So far as the despondency 
of the people occasions this sad condition of affairs, I 
know of no other means of removing it than by the coun¬ 
sel and exhortations of prominent citizens. If they would 
explain to the people that the cause is not hopeless; that 
the situation of affairs, though critical, is critical to the 
enemy as well as to ourselves; that he has drawn his 
troops from every other quarter to accomplish his de¬ 
signs against Richmond and that his defeat now would 


THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT 95 

result in leaving nearly our whole territory open to us; 
that this great result can be accomplished if all will 
work diligently and zealously; and that his successes 
are far less valuable in fact than in appearance, I think 
our sorely tried people would be induced to bear their 
sufferings a little longer and regain some of the spirit 
that marked the first two years of the war. If they will, 
I feel confident that, with the blessing of God, our great¬ 
est danger will prove the means of deliverance and 
safety.” 55 

But, alas, the spirit was crushed, the courage was 
broken, never to be reanimated again. Lee knew it, 
however much he fought the conviction. If the people 
were no longer behind him, what could he do ? “ Gen¬ 
eral Lee says to the men who shirk duty,” writes Mrs. 
Chesnut, “ ‘ This is the people’s war: when they tire, 
I stop.’ ” 56 Or as he himself writes, more solemnly, “ Our 
people have not been earnest enough, have thought too 
much of themselves and their ease, and instead of turn¬ 
ing out to a man, have been content to nurse themselves 
and their dimes, and leave the protection of themselves 
and families to others.” 57 It was this that made him so 
hopeless about obtaining supplies that in December, 
1864, he is said to have told a committee of Congress 
that “he could devise no means of carrying on the 
war.” 58 It was this that made him so despondent in his 
conversation with Hunter, about the same time that the 
above letter was written to Vance. “ In the whole of this 


96 LEE THE AMERICAN 

conversation he never said to me that he thought the 
chances were over; but the tone and tenor of his re¬ 
marks made that impression on my mind.” 59 It was 
this, finally, that made him say, as is reported, shortly 
after the war was over: “ In my earnest belief peace was 
practicable two years ago and has been since that time, 
whenever the general government should see fit to give 
any reasonable chance for the country to escape the con¬ 
sequences which the exasperated North seemed ready to 
visit upon it.” 60 

Yet here again, Lee was the soldier, not the president. 
So long as the civil government said fight, he fought, till 
fighting had become, in any reasonable sense, imposs¬ 
ible. The distress of mind involved in this is nowhere 
more clearly indicated than in the words said to have 
been spoken to General Gordon. “ General Gordon, I am 
a soldier. It is my duty to obey orders. It is enough 
to turn one’s hair gray to spend one day in the Congress. 
The members are patriotic and earnest, but they will 
neither take the responsibility of action nor will they 
clothe me with authority to act for them. As for Mr. 
Davis, he is unwilling to do anything short of independ¬ 
ence and feels that it is useless to try to treat on that 
basis.” 61 But when at last Davis had left the capital and 
practically the control of affairs, the commander of the 
Army of Northern Virginia acted his final scene with the 
dignity, the sacrifice, the true patriotism which Mr. 
Adams has so nobly commemorated. 62 Instead of scat* 


THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT 97 

tering the desperate remnant of his forces to carry on a 
murderous guerilla warfare, Lee recognized the inevit¬ 
able, and surrendered his army on conditions certainly 
in no way hurtful to its lasting glory. With that sur¬ 
render the government of the Confederate States in real¬ 
ity ceased to exist. 

These studies of Lee in his relations to the civil gov¬ 
ernment do not perhaps show him at his best or in the 
most splendid manifestation of his genius. Yet hardly 
anything in the man’s character is grander than the way 
in which he instantly adapted himself to new circum¬ 
stances and began to work as a loyal and devoted citi¬ 
zen, even when the United States still refused him the 
rights and privileges of citizenship. The importance of 
his influence in this regard, over his friends and family, 
over his old soldiers, over every Southern man and 
woman cannot be exaggerated. “When he said that 
the career of the Confederacy was ended; that the hope 
of an independent government must be abandoned; and 
that the duty of the future was to abandon the dream of 
a Confederacy and to render a new and cheerful alle¬ 
giance to a reunited government, — his utterances were 
accepted as true as holy writ. No other human being 
upon earth, no other earthly power could have produced 
such acquiescence or could have compelled such prompt 
acceptance of the final and irreversible judgment.” 63 
There was no grudging, no holding back, no hiding of 
despair in dark corners, but an instant effort to do, and 


98 LEE THE AMERICAN 

to urge others to do, everything possible to rebuild the 
fair edifice that had been overthrown. 

“ When I had the privilege, after his death, of exam¬ 
ining his private letter-book, I found it literally crowded 
with letters advising old soldiers and others to submit to 
all authorities and become law-abiding citizens,” writes his 
biographer. 64 “ I am sorry,” writes Lee himself, “ to hear 
that our returned soldiers cannot obtain employment. 
Tell them they must all set to work, and if they cannot 
do what they prefer, do what they can. Virginia wants 
all their aid, all their support, and the presence of all her 
sons to sustain and recuperate her.” 65 “To one who in¬ 
quired what fate was in store for us poor Virginians, he 
replied, ‘You can work for Virginia, to build her up 
again, to make her great again. You can teach your 
children to love and cherish her.’ ” 66 

If any one urges that this is still the old leaven, after 
all, Virginia, always Virginia, we answer, No, this man 
was great enough to forget and forget at once, to blend 
Virginia even then with a larger nationality. As a mat¬ 
ter of policy he expresses this with clear insight: “ The 
interests of the state are, therefore, the same as those of 
the United States. Its prosperity will rise or fall with the 
welfare of the country.” 67 As a matter of feeling, he ex¬ 
presses it with profound and noble emotion, saying to a 
lady who cherished more bitterness than he, “ Madam, 
don’t bring up your sons to detest the United States 
Government. Recollect that we form one country now. 


THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT 99 

Abandon all these local animosities and make your sons 
Americans.” 68 

Abandon all these local animosities and make your sons 
Americans . What finer sentence could be inscribed on 
the pedestal of Lee’s statue than that ? Americans 1 All 
the local animosities forgiven and forgotten, can we not 
say that he, too, though dying only five years after the 
terrible struggle, died a loyal, a confident, a hopeful 
American, and one of the very greatest ? 


V 


LEE AND HIS ARMY 

What we have to study in Lee’s relations with his 
army, as in other matters, is the character of the man, 
how he contrived to hold for three years — and long 
after — the absolute devotion of scores of thousands of 
soldiers. Other generals have led loyal and enthusiastic 
armies from victory to victory. This general held affec¬ 
tion and confidence unshaken through defeat, disaster, 
and final ruin. And the army that loved him was an army 
to be proud of, “ the best army,” says one of its generous 
opponents, “ which has existed on this continent.” 1 
Lee built up his army before he commanded it. Dur¬ 
ing the early months of the war he was busy at Rich¬ 
mond getting the troops ready for the field, and it was 
he more than any one else who transformed a chaotic 
afflux of volunteers into the semblance of an organized 
force which beat another semblance at the first battle of 
Bull Run. Even those who long doubted Lee’s ability 
as a commander admitted his gift for extracting order 
out of confusion, his patient industry, his clear system, 
his tact in smoothing rough tempers and harmonizing 
wills that jarred. “ In the space of two months,” says 
Colonel Long, “ he was able to equip for the field sixty 
regiments of infantry and cavalry, besides numerous 



GENERAL LEE ON TRAVELER 





LEE AND HIS ARMY 


101 


batteries of artillery, making an aggregate of nearly 
fifty thousand men.” 

With this constructive experience behind him, Lee 
continued throughout the war to treat his army not as 
a mere fighting machine, but as a human body which 
must be fed and clothed, or ought to be, for even his 
efforts could not accomplish the impossible. He enjoins 
upon his subordinate officers care for the well-being of 
their men. “Do not let your troops run down, if it can 
possibly be avoided by attention to their wants, com¬ 
forts, etc., by their respective commanders.” 2 His con¬ 
stant appeals to the Richmond authorities for provisions, 
with graphic statement of the soldiers’ sufferings, are 
pathetic in their earnestness. Submissive as he was to 
superior officials, he resented at once any indication that 
his men were being sacrificed to other commands else¬ 
where. “ I have been mortified to find that when any 
scarcity existed, this was the only army in which it is 
found necessary to reduce the rations.” 3 The best evi¬ 
dence of his care is that the soldiers trusted him and 
were willing to starve, if he bade them. It is recorded 
that a private once wrote saying that he could not do his 
work on his rations and asking if the general knew what 
they were, as, if he did, it must be that the scarcity was 
unavoidable and the men would do the best they could. 
Lee made no direct answer, but explained the situation 
in a general order. “After that there was not a murmur 
in the army.” 4 


102 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


So with the less pressing but not less serious need of 
clothing. Near the end of the war Lee writes that the 
men “ were greatly exposed in line of battle two days, 
had been without meat for three days, and in scanty 
clothing took the cold hail and sleet.” 5 It was on a pass¬ 
age similar to this that Davis noted characteristically, 
“ these things are too sad to be patiently considered ” ; 
but I am not aware that he rose up in anger and made 
somebody consider them. Frequently Lee is obliged 
to allege the utter destitution of his troops as a reason 
for not making a forward movement, and in doing so he 
expresses his admiration for all they have been able to 
accomplish. “ Nothing prevented my continuing in his 
front but the destitute condition of the men, thousands 
of whom are barefooted, a greater number partially shod, 
and nearly all without blankets, overcoats, or warm 
clothing. I think the sublimest sight of the war was the 
cheerfulness and alacrity exhibited by this army in the 
pursuit of the enemy under all the trials and privations 
to which it was exposed.” 6 And it is with the grief of a 
mortified parent that he expresses his surprise at finding 
some of his followers ready to take advantage of the 
necessities of others. “ It has also been reported that 
some men in this army have been so unmindful of 
their obligations to their comrades, and of their own 
characters, as to engage in the occupation of purchasing 
supplies of food and other things, for the purpose of sell¬ 
ing them at exorbitant prices to their fellow soldiers.” 7 


LEE AND HIS ARMY 


103 

It was indeed always as a parent, not merely as a 
military superior, that Lee believed in controlling and 
disciplining his army. This attitude led to a certain free¬ 
dom of discipline which did not wholly satisfy those 
accustomed to European methods. “Two defects as a 
general were ascribed to him personally,” says a German 
critic, “ an indifference to discipline and a too kindly 
consideration for incompetent officers.” 8 And even Davis 
remarked that “ his habit of avoiding any seeming harsh¬ 
ness . . . was probably a defect.” 9 Yet if the object of 
discipline is to make troops efficient and enthusiastic, it 
can hardly be said that Lee failed. An eye-witness, by 
no means uncritical and writing on the spot, says: “ In 
Lee’s army everything is reduced down to the smallest 
compass and the discipline and obedience of the officers 
and men is perfect.” 10 While Hooker, an enemy who 
had felt the results, if he had not watched the processes, 
testified : “ With a rank and file vastly inferior to our 
own, intellectually and physically, that army has, by dis¬ 
cipline alone, acquired a character for steadiness and 
efficiency, unsurpassed, in my judgment, in ancient or 
modern times. We have not been able to rival it, nor 
has there been any near approximation to it in the other 
rebel armies.” 11 

Some good observers, notably Mr. Eggleston, do not 
agree with Hooker as to the original quality of Lee’s 
soldiers. Undoubtedly the best intelligence and educa¬ 
tion of the South went right into the ranks; but this ele- 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


104 

ment was naturally outbalanced by poverty and ignor« 
ance, and the average Southern soldier was less com¬ 
mon-schooled than the Northern, because the same thing 
was true of the average Southern citizen. In any case, it 
was a popular army, composed of American freemen; 
and from the point of view of discipline, Lee, with his 
perfect human sympathy, at once seized this fact in all 
its bearings. “There is a great difference,” he said to 
Colonel Long, “ between mercenary armies and volunteer 
armies, and consequently there must be a difference in 
the mode of discipline. The volunteer army is more eas¬ 
ily disciplined by encouraging a patriotic spirit than by 
a strict enforcement of the articles of war.” 12 When Schei- 
bert commended the bravery of Jackson’s troops at 
Chancellorsville, Lee said : “ Give me Prussian forma¬ 
tions and Prussian discipline, and you would see very 
different results.” 13 

This does not mean that Lee overlooked the absolute 
need of severity in dealing with refractory soldiers or was 
foolishly averse to it “You must establish rigid disci¬ 
pline,” he writes to a subordinate at the very beginning 
of the war. 14 He insisted everywhere on order and clean¬ 
liness. “ Colonel,” he said to an officer who begged for 
a visit, “a dirty camp gives me nausea. If you say your 
camps are clean, I will go.” 15 He endeavored, as far as 
possible, to repress camp vices, especially gambling. 
“ The general commanding is pained to learn that the 
vice of gambling exists and is becoming common in this 


LEE AND HIS ARMY 


105 

army ... it was not supposed that a habit so pernici¬ 
ous and demoralizing would be found among men en¬ 
gaged in a cause demanding the highest virtue and 
purest morality in its supporters.” 16 The strictness of his 
orders in regard to pillage during his invasions of the 
North is well known; but they were not only strict in 
form, they were carried out in fact, as is proved by the 
testimony of his enemies, to the lasting glory of both 
army and commander. Violation of these orders pro¬ 
voked Lee’s wrath more than anything except brutal¬ 
ity, 17 and when he himself detected one soldier in theft, 
he ordered him shot immediately. He was equally ready 
to inflict the death penalty in cases of desertion, when 
they became too frequent, and had again and again to 
urge the necessity of rigor upon the Richmond author¬ 
ities. “ I hope I feel as acutely as any one the pain and 
sorrow that such events occasion, and I am sure that no 
one would more willingly dispense with them, if they 
could be avoided ; but I am convinced that the only way 
to prevent them is to visit the offense, when committed, 
with the sternest punishment, and leave the offender 
without hope of escape, by making the penalty inevit¬ 
able.” 18 

Yet withal he was lenient, perhaps too lenient, and 
longed, as a father would, to work by persuasion rather 
than by violence. “ This is a case,” he wrote in one in¬ 
stance, “ where possible error is better than probable 
wrong”; 19 and doubtless he applied the rule in many 



106 LEE THE AMERICAN 

instances When an angry officer wanted to disband a 
whole company for cowardice, Lee defended them. “ For 
the bad behavior of a few, it would not appear just to 
punish the whole.” 20 And always his method was to get 
work done by kindly urgency, by playful rallying, by 
sympathetic encouragement, rather than by the spur or 
the lash: “ General Lee, taking his daily ride about the 
lines, came on me while the working parties were dig¬ 
ging and spading. His greeting was, ‘ Good-morning, 
my young friend, I feel sorry for you.’ ‘Why so, Gen¬ 
eral ? f ‘ Because you have so much to do,’ answered the 
commander, the gleaming white teeth showing his pleas¬ 
ant humor, as he continued his ride. He generally had 
some such words to let one know he expected a lot of 
work out of him.” 21 

Discipline of officers is a more delicate matter than 
discipline of soldiers and requires an even finer tact, 
sympathy, and divination of character. Here also Lee 
always remembered that he commanded an army of 
American freemen, accustomed to vote and to criticize 
everything and everybody. He let them say their say, 
asked their advice often, and occasionally followed it. 
Yet it is sometimes difficult to reconcile their free and 
easy ways with any idea of military subordination. Take, 
for example, that hard fighter and true-hearted gentle¬ 
man, James Longstreet. I do not wish here to discuss 
his conduct at Gettysburg. But when I consider that 
conduct in the light of various passages in his letters to 


LEE AND HIS ARMY 


107 

his chief, I feel myself more in a position to understand 
it. What would have happened to Ney or Soult, if he 
had addressed the first Napoleon in this wise: “I am 
pleased at all times to have any suggestions that you 
may make,” 22 or again, “There are several little points 
upon which you should be posted before the interview, 
and I do not see how I can well do this by writing.” 23 
Longstreet patronized his great commander as he would 
a budding subaltern. “I wrote a note to General Lee 
• . . and cautioned him to make his arrangements to 
return that night.” 24 With men of this stamp discipline 
was not always a simple matter, as appears from some 
of the experiences of Jackson. 

The summary methods of Jackson did not appeal to 
Lee, who, instead of the guardhouse, employed tact as 
soothing as it was inexhaustible. The hot-headed Stuart 
demands justification against some criticism. Lee writes 
to him: “ I prefer your acts to speak for themselves, nor 
does your character or reputation require bolstering up 
by out-of-place expressions of my opinion.” 25 It becomes 
necessary to dismiss Early from command, in spite of 
good service, because he has lost the confidence of his 
troops. Lee dismisses him, but states the facts so sym¬ 
pathetically that he loses no jot of Early’s affection, who 
could say after the war, “ It is difficult for those who did 
not know him personally to understand the wonderful 
magnanimity of character which induced General Lee 
often to take the chances of incurring censure himself 


io8 LEE THE AMERICAN 

rather than run the risk of doing possible injustice to 
another.” 26 

Not that Lee could not rebuke, and sternly. When 
the Confederates were flying from Five Forks, he turned 
to a general officer and ordered him, with marked em¬ 
phasis, to collect and put under guard “all the strag¬ 
glers on the field,” 27 showing that he meant to include 
many of his officers as well as men. On another occa¬ 
sion he said to a dilatory commander: “ General, I have 
sometimes to admonish General Stuart or General Gor¬ 
don against being too fast, I shall never have occasion 
to find that fault with you.” 28 

But usually he gave his criticism some turn of sympa¬ 
thetic suggestion or even of kindly laughter. It is to be 
noted that the success of this method depends upon the 
person who uses it, and there are times when one prefers 
a straight-out, sharp order, to a would-be pleasant insin¬ 
uation. I confess that Lee’s amiable reprimands some¬ 
times suggest to me Xenophon’s remark about Proxenus, 
that “ he was fit to command the good ; but he could not 
instill fear into the soldiers, and it seemed that he had 
more consideration for those he commanded than those 
he commanded had for him.” Proxenus could not have 
won the battle of Chancellorsville, however; and it ap¬ 
pears that Lee was feared, for all his mildness. “ I believe 
all his officers feared him,” says Major Ranson. “They 
loved him as men are seldom loved, but they feared him 
too.” 29 As to the reprimands, the best-known instance 


V 


LEE AND HIS ARMY 


109 

is that of the officer with the condition of whose lines 
Lee was far from satisfied. As they rode together, the 
general remarked, “ That is a magnificent horse, Gen¬ 
eral -, but I should not think him safe for Mrs.- 

to ride. He is entirely too spirited for a lady, and I 
would urge you by all means to take some of the mettle 
out of him before you suffer her to ride him again. And, 
by the way, General, I would suggest to you that the 
rough paths along these trenches would be admirable 
ground over which to tame him.” 30 Another interesting 
case — made a little suspicious by the profanity — is 
that of the staff officer who took the liberty of altering 
orders to meet circumstances. Lee made no comment 
at the time, but later at dinner he told the story of Gen¬ 
eral Twiggs, whose staff were always altering orders, 
until he finally remarked to one of them : “ Captain, 
I know you can prove that you are right, and that my 
order was wrong, in fact you gentlemen always are 
right, but for God’s sake, do wrong sometimes.” 31 
Among Lee’s greatest difficulties in dealing with his 
officers was, of course, the question of promotion. Ap¬ 
parently every man in the Army of Northern Virginia 
felt himself perfectly competent to be commander of it, 
except the man who had the honor of filling that office, 
and Stuart is said to have remarked sarcastically of the 
troops in general: “ They are pretty good officers now 
and after a while will make excellent soldiers too. They 
only need reducing to the ranks.” 32 “ In an army,” says 




no 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


Dumas in his rollicking fashion, “ everybody, from the 
second in command to the rawest recruit, desires the 
death of somebody.” This is quite legitimate. What is 
not so is to spend time and temper, not your own, in 
complaining, fretting, and repining. Too many high 
Confederate officers,]. E. Johnston among others, showed 
a sensitiveness and pettiness on the subject, which was 
as unbecoming as it was thoroughly human. 

Lee himself at all times absolutely disclaimed any 
eagerness for advancement. “ I think rank of trivial im¬ 
portance so that it is sufficient for the individual to exer¬ 
cise his command.” 33 Again and again he offered to 
serve wherever and however his superiors thought he 
could be useful. To say this is easy. To convince others 
of the truth of it is less so. But I am not aware that any 
one has ever questioned Lee’s sincerity. There was that 
about him, in manner and still more in action, which 
proved that he thought only of his country and his duty. 
Testimony is hardly needed, but Stiles offers a bit, which 
is impressive, if somewhat astounding. “ I never but 
once heard of such a suggestion [that Lee acted from 
other than the purest motives], and then it so trans¬ 
ported the hearers that military subordination was for¬ 
gotten and the colonel who heard it rushed with drawn 
sword against the major-general who made it.” 84 

Nor does there seem to be much disposition to accuse 
Lee of favoritism. He certainly had no hand in the ad¬ 
vancement of his own sons, who rose steadily by their 


LEE AND HIS ARMY 


hi 


\ 


merit. He refuses a friend’s application for a staff posi¬ 
tion, because “ persons on my staff should have a know¬ 
ledge of their duties and an experience of the wants of 
the service to enable me to attend to other matters.” 35 
It is indeed alleged that he was partial to Virginia, not¬ 
ably in the case of A. P. Hill; but the charge comes 
from sources too prejudiced to deserve much attention. 
Even those who complain bitterly of the jealousy and 
narrowness of the West Point tradition do not seem to 
include Lee in their animosity,, Thus Tyler w r rites to 
Price: “ I have found myself laboring under the odium 
of the little West Pointers in Richmond and their parti¬ 
sans. They oppose me in the War Office at all points in 
regard to any and every wish.” 36 But in the same letter 
he says of Lee: “Without parade, haughtiness, or as¬ 
sumption, he is elevated in his thought and feeling, and 
is worthy of the cause he represents and the army he 
commands.” 37 

One thing is beyond dispute, no personal considera¬ 
tion was allowed to enter into his decisions. When he 
urged the promotion of a certain officer, it was pointed 
out that that officer had been very free in criticizing the 
general. “ The question is,” Lee answered, “ not what he 
thinks or is pleased to say about me, but what I think 
about him.” 38 

It would be impossible to estimate the time, the 
strength, the nervous energy that must have been ex¬ 
pended in counseling patience, in soothing injured 


112 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


vanity, in forestalling complaints, and in urging the sac¬ 
rifice of personal gain, credit, and advantage to the cause 
which all were bound to serve. He writes to one officer 
— and the letter is typical: “ Recognizing as fully as I 
do your merit, patriotism, and devotion to the state, I do 
not consider that either rank or position are necessary to 
bestow upon you honor, but believe that you will confer 
honor on the position. In the present crisis of affairs, I 
know that your own feelings, better than any words of 
mine, will point out the course for you to pursue to ad¬ 
vance the cause in which you are engaged.” 39 Without 
the power to make promotions himself, and obliged, 
even in suggesting, to exercise the utmost consideration 
towards a jealous and sensitive superior, Lee, like Wash¬ 
ington, was forced to use infinite tact and sympathy in 
order to harmonize the claims that conflicted about him. 
But he seems to have been more fortunate than Wash¬ 
ington in that at least his officers did not conspire and 
intrigue against himself. 

If they did not quarrel with him, they sometimes quar¬ 
reled with each other, however, and so added to his 
troubles. Jackson’s repeated difficulties with A. P. Hill 
will call for more extended discussion in connection with 
Lee and Jackson. But among all these high-spirited 
young men dissensions and jealousies were almost in¬ 
evitable and with little tradition of discipline to re¬ 
strain them they were perpetually breaking out, to the 
detriment of the service and the extreme discomfort of 


LEE AND HIS ARMY 


ii 3 

the general. An officer of large experience writes: “ I 
have myself heard a major-general send a message back 
to army headquarters by a staff officer of General Lee, 
that he did n’t see why his division should be expected 
to abandon the position they had fought for just to ac¬ 
commodate General-, whose troops had fallen back 

where his had driven the enemy.” 40 In Lee’s early days 
of command he had to reconcile the animosities of Wise 
and Floyd. He did it in words as noble as they are sim¬ 
ple: ‘ You have spoken to me of want of consultation 
and concert; let that pass, till the enemy is driven back, 
and then, as far as I can, all shall be arranged. I expect 
this of your magnanimity.” 41 Later the bellicose A. P. 
Hill quarreled with Longstreet over the praise accorded 
to their respective commands by newspaper correspond¬ 
ents and it is even said that a duel had been arranged; 
but Lee’s patience and tact averted such an extremity. 42 

The most fruitful source of all these differences was 
the incurable human disposition to put the blame for 
one’s failures on somebody else. No doubt Lee’s noble 
example in constantly refusing to do this himself had a 
wide influence on others. It is reported that after the 
war he told a publisher that he could not write his mem¬ 
oirs, because to do it honestly would ruin too many 
reputations. This does not sound quite genuine; but we 
do know that after Gettysburg he wrote as follows to 
Pickett with reference to the latter’s official report of the 
battle: “You and your men have crowned yourselves 



LEE THE AMERICAN 


114 

with glory, but we have the enemy to fight, and must 
carefully, at this critical moment, guard against dissen¬ 
sions which the reflections in your report will create. I 
will, therefore, suggest that you destroy both copy and 
original.” 43 And Pickett did it. 

As to his personal relations with his officers, I doubt 
if any of them ever felt entirely at ease with him. They 
were mostly younger men than he, but even in his early 
days he seems to have had few intimate associates, and 
age probably softened his natural dignity and gravity 
rather than increased it. Not that there was any stiffness 
about him or any pretense. I imagine that in his secret 
heart he envied the young fellows their careless ways, 
their idle jests, their trifling laughter. He liked Stuart’s 
rollicking nonsense, liked to listen to the Irish banjo- 
player, Sweeny. One night when the singing was un¬ 
usually uproarious, he stepped out of his tent and noted 
with a smile a black jug perched on a boulder: “ Gentle¬ 
men, am I to thank General Stuart or the jug for this 
fine music ? ” 44 He liked occasionally to pass a quiet joke 
himself. Still, he was no talker, no story-teller, knew 
nothing of the fine art of being idle; and even in the 
midst of a hundred thousand men who loved him I think 
he was very solitary. 

This does not mean that he secluded himself, or kept 
apart, absorbed in his own thoughts. He discussed his 
plans freely with those in whom he had confidence and 
would ask a young officer’s opinion of great questions with 


LEE AND HIS ARMY 


ii 5 

a frankness as winning as it was sincere. “ Colonel 
Long,” he said before Gettysburg, “do you think we 
had better attack without the cavalry ? If we do, we will 
not, if successful, be able to reap the fruits of victory.” 45 

Also, he was constantly attentive to the comfort of 
those about him. On the retreat from Pennsylvania he 
rebuked his aide, Colonel Venable, for telling bad news 
too loudly. Venable was high-spirited and did not like 
it, nor did a kindly invitation to drink buttermilk en¬ 
tirely soothe him. Shortly afterwards the aide, worn 
out with running and watching, lay down to sleep in the 
mud and rain. When he awoke, he found that the gen¬ 
eral had spread his own oilskin over him. 46 

\ 

As to the ease of approaching the commander-in-chief 
on matters of business, accounts differ. Grant under¬ 
stood that he was “difficult of access to subordinates.” 
Tyler, in his invaluable letter to Price, giving an ac¬ 
count of Lee’s army, says the commander is “almost 
unapproachable, and yet no man is more simple, or less 
ostentatious, hating all pretension.” 47 Unapproachable 
— yet “the scouts compared him [Jackson] with Lee. 
The latter was so genial that it was a pleasure to report 
to him.” 48 The explanation of these contradictions is 
simply that Lee mistrusted his good nature. He knew 
that a complainant, once admitted, would waste his time, 
his strength, his nerves; and he trained his aides to do 
needed snubbing vicariously. As Colonel Venable writes, 
“General Lee had certain wishes which his aides-de- 


Ii6 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


camp knew well they must conform to. They did not 
allow any friend of a soldier condemned by a court mar¬ 
tial to reach his tent for personal appeal. . . . He said 
that with the great responsibilities resting upon him he 
could not bear the pain and distress of such applica¬ 
tions.” 49 And when officers came to find fault in regard 
to their promotion, he would turn them over to an aide 
with the old-fashioned phrase, “ Suage him, Colonel, 
suage him.” 50 

By these methods Lee kept a certain remoteness, 
which did not hurt his popularity and helped his dig¬ 
nity. Men loved to gaze on him. “It is surprising to 
see how eager the men of this army are always to get a 
good view of General Lee, for though a person has 
seen him a hundred times, yet he never tires looking at 
him,” is the charmingly naive comment of a correspond¬ 
ent of the “Richmond Despatch” in 1863. 51 On the 
other hand, the element of distance is most happily sug¬ 
gested by the remark of an officer to Mrs. Pickett. “ Lee 
was a great soldier and a good man, but I never wanted 
to put my arms round his neck, as I used to want to do 
to Joe Johnston.” 52 

Yet when occasion brought him into close contact 
even with the common soldier, his manner was abso¬ 
lutely simple, as of equal to equal, of man to man. Once 
in a crowded car a wounded private w r as struggling to 
draw on his coat over a bandaged arm. An officer, see¬ 
ing his difficulty, came forward and tenderly assisted 


LEE AND HIS ARMY 


ii 7 

him. 53 It was the commander-in-chief. At another time 
Lee had sat down to rest in the shade of a great tree. 
A busy surgeon wished to establish his headquarters 
there. “ Old man, I have chosen that tree for my field- 
hospital, and I want you to get out of the way.” Then 
he discovered his mistake. But Lee gently relieved the 
embarrassment of the situation: “ There is plenty of 
room for both of us, Doctor, until your wounded are 
brought.” 54 Even when they knew him, the soldiers 
sometimes took incredible liberties. On the hottest of 
July days one of them left the ranks and approached 
the general. The staff tried to stop him, but Lee put 
them aside and asked what he wanted. 4 Please, Gen¬ 
eral, I don’t want much, but it’s powerful wet marching 
this weather. I was looking for a rag or something to 
wipe the sweat out of my eyes.” “Will this do?” said 
the general, handkerchief in hand. “ Yes, my Lordy, that 
indeed 1 ” “ Well, then, take it with you, and back quick to 
ranks; no straggling this march, you know, my man.” 65 
In more serious matters Lee was equally ready to 
show the most democratic feeling. A devout Christian 
himself, he thought of each man in his army as a soul to 
be saved and in every way he could encouraged the mis¬ 
sion and revival work which went on all through the war 
with ever-increasing activity. Even in the midst of urg¬ 
ent duty he would stop and take part in a camp prayer¬ 
meeting, and listen to the exhortations of some ragged 
veteran, as a young convert might listen to an apostle. 


Ii8 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


One thing doubtless helped his hold on the soldiers, 
as it helped Napoleon’s, an extraordinary memory for 
names, faces, and characters. The value of this in deal¬ 
ing with his officers was, of course, inestimable. “ Lee 
knew his army man by man almost, and could judge of 
the probable results of the movement here announced 
by the name of the officer in command.” 56 With the pri¬ 
vates the advantage gained was less direct but quite as 
solid. “ I have frequently seen him recognize at once 
some old soldier whom he had barely met during the 
war, and who would be as surprised as delighted that his 
loved commander had not forgotten him.” 57 Lee himself 
is reported to have said that “ he had never been intro¬ 
duced to a soldier of the Army of Northern Virginia 
whose face and name he could not instantly recall.” 58 
This I doubt, in view of his not too courteous remark to 
Grant, at the time of the surrender, that he had frequently 
endeavored to recall his features from their acquaintance 
in Mexico, but could never succeed in doing so, and from 
another anecdote to the effect that he was extremely 
annoyed at not recognizing a man who was introduced 
to him after the war. “ I was really much ashamed at 
not knowing the gentleman yesterday; I ought to have 
recognized him at once. He spent at least an hour in my 
quarters in the City of Mexico just after its occupation 
by the American army \twenty years previous ^; he made 
a very agreeable impression on me, and I ought not to 
have forgotten him.” 59 


LEE AND HIS ARMY 


119 

What is of most general interest in this matter of Lee’s 
memory of individuals, is his own assertion that it was 
not a special gift, but purely a matter of attention, which 
recalls Lord Chesterfield’s theory that attention is the 
most exquisite element of courtesy. “ Want of attention, 
which is really want of thought, is either folly or mad¬ 
ness. You should not only have attention to everything, 
but a quickness of attention, so as to observe, at once, 
all the people in the room, their motions, their looks, and 
their words, and yet without staring at them, and seem¬ 
ing to be an observer.” Only, Lee would have com¬ 
pleted Chesterfield’s idea of courtesy by that other ele¬ 
ment of love, which Chesterfield knew nothing about. 

Again, like some other great commanders, and unlike 
others, Lee won the hearts of his soldiers by living as 
they did. He managed the business of his position with 
as little fuss and parade as possible. Foreign officers 
were struck with the absolute simplicity of his arrange¬ 
ments. There were no guards or sentries around his 
headquarters, no idle aides-de-camp loitering about. His 
staff were crowded together, two and three in a tent, and 
none were allowed to carry more baggage than a small 
box each. Tyler writes to Price: “ Your own headquarters 
are more numerous and bulky. He rides with only three 
members of his staff and never takes with him an extra 
horse or servant, although he is upon the lines usually 
from daylight until dark.” 60 His dress was always of the 
simplest, though neat and tidy, no braid or gilding, 


120 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


nothing but the stars on the collar to indicate his rank. 
He was perfectly Spartan as to his abiding-place, almost 
never leaving his tent for solid walls ; and he was espe¬ 
cially particular that there should be no intrusion upon 
peaceful citizens for his comfort. On one occasion Colo¬ 
nel Long had established the headquarters in a yard, 
but the general insisted on moving, lest they should 
annoy the residents. Long, thereupon, rather vexed, 
picked out another spot that had little to recommend it; 
but Lee was perfectly contented: “ This is better than 
the yard. We will not now disturb these good people.” 61 
At another time Colonel Taylor made everything as 
agreeable as possible, but sighed over his chief’s indif¬ 
ference: “It was entirely too pleasant for him, for he is 
never so comfortable as when uncomfortable.” 62 This 
same Colonel Taylor ventured to rally the general a little 
on the subject. It seems that Lee had the best bedroom, 
while his aide was obliged to put up with the parlor. 
“ Ah, you are finely fixed,” remarked the great soldier, 
as he looked in upon his subordinate. “ Could n’t you 
find any other room?” “No, but this will do.” “He 
was struck dumb with amazement at my impudence and 
vanished.” 63 

The table was as simple as the dwelling-place. Neat 
tin camp dishes answered for the service and the food 
was plain as the tableware. Very frequently there was 
actual scarcity; for the general was not willing to have 
special effort made for him when the soldiers were starv- 


LEE AND HIS ARMY 


121 


ing. The dinner often consisted of cabbage boiled with 
a little salt. Sweet potatoes and buttermilk were deemed 
luxury and when the commander-in-chief offered his 
luncheon to a major-general, it was found to consist of 
two cold sweet potatoes of which Lee said he was very 
fond. Even when better was provided, the general re¬ 
fused it, sending delicacies to the hospitals, perhaps not 
always to the contentment of his young and hungry 
staff. On the last march to Appomattox Mrs. Guild 
writes : “When we would camp near a house, they would 
prepare their best for General Lee; but he would sleep 
in his tent or on the ground with his staff, and say that 
I must go and have what was prepared for him.” 64 
That Lee was beloved by his army it is hardly neces¬ 
sary to say, immensely beloved, beloved as few generals 
have ever been. In the first place, officers and soldiers 
trusted him. They trusted him in victory, knew that he 
would spare their toil and spare their blood as much as 
was possible, would make no move for barren glory, but 
only for their good and his country’s. What is far more, 
they trusted him in defeat, knew that he would do every¬ 
thing that could be done and would save them from 
further damage if human skill could contrive it. They 
trusted him after Gettysburg. “ We ’ve not lost confi¬ 
dence in the old man, this day’s work won’t do him any 
harm.” “ Uncle Robert will get us into Washington yet; 
you bet he will.” 65 They trusted him in the dark days 
of the Wilderness, and in the darker days of Peters- 


122 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


burg. If he could not help them, no one could. Even 
the hard-headed and critical Longstreet believed that 
Lee was the man. “We need some such great mind as 
General Lee’s,” he writes from Tennessee . 66 When the 
final disaster came, the universal trust in the general 
was still unshaken. What he decides is right, what he 
says is the thing to do must be done. One of the coolest 
of Confederate authors writes of the surrender : “ Other 
men fairly raved with indignation, and declared their 
desire to escape or die in the attempt, but not a man 
was heard to blame General Lee. . . . On the contrary, 
all expressed the greatest sympathy for him and declared 
their willingness to submit at once, or fight to the last 
man, as he ordered ” 67 

An army may trust their general without loving him, 
however. This army loved him. I have sought far and 
wide for expressions of jealousy, of hostility, of luke¬ 
warmness. They are rare indeed. In the early South 
Carolina days some disaffection appears. “ I do not 
know if it prevails elsewhere in the army,” writes Gov¬ 
ernor Pickens to the president, “ but I take the liberty to 
inform you that I fear the feelings of General Ripley to¬ 
wards General Lee may do injury to the public service. 
His habit is to say extreme things even before junior 
officers, and this is well calculated to do injury to Gen¬ 
eral Lee’s command.” 68 Occasionally an individual frets 
over some disappointment or hindrance, as G. W. Smith 
in North Carolina: “What I mean to say is that General 


LEE AND HIS ARMY 


123 

Lee in command of an army at Fredericksburg is not in 
the same point of view and evidently does not see things 
precisely as they appeared to him when General Johnston 
commanded that army ”; 69 or the petulant A. P. Hill, 
near the close of the struggle: “It is arrant nonsense 
for Lee to say that Grant can’t make a night march 
without his knowing it. Has not Grant slipped round 
him four times already ?” 70 

But these mild and scattered notes of discordance are 
completely lost in the general chorus of love and loyalty. 
The officers, high and low, vie with each other in their 
expressions of enthusiasm, none being more complete 
and touching in pregnant brevity than that of Long- 
street : “All that we have to be proud of has been ac¬ 
complished under your eye and under your orders. Our 
affections for you are stronger, if it is possible for them 
to be stronger, than our admiration for you.” 71 But to 
me the simple and almost inarticulate devotion of the 
common soldiers is even more beautiful than that of 
their superiors. The loving, familiar nicknames, the 
quaint anecdotes, the eagerness to see, and to hear, 
and to obey, mean more than volumes of eulogy. Curi¬ 
ous testimony to the quality of the feeling the soldiers 
had is furnished by several independent observers: 
“ When he appeared in the presence of the troops, he 
was sometimes cheered vociferously, but far more fre¬ 
quently his coming was greeted with a profound silence 
which expressed more truly than cheers could have done 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


124 

the well-nigh religious reverence with which the men 
regarded his person.” 72 This is, I think, a phenomenon 
somewhat rare in the psychology of crowds. Another 
interesting bit of out-of-the way evidence is furnished by 
a writer in the “ Richmond Examiner” in August, 1864. 
It had been proposed to offer a one hundred dollar bond 
to all old soldiers who had served faithfully, but this 
correspondent, writing from the army, says: “ The sol¬ 
diers would prefer a strip of parchment in the shape of 
a certificate, setting forth their good conduct and sol¬ 
dierly qualities, signed by General R. E. Lee. This 
would be indeed a treasure to keep in after years.” 73 
Finally, one who knew both general and army well sums 
up the matter as follows: “Such was the love and ven¬ 
eration of the men for him that they came to look upon 
the cause as General Lee’s cause, and they fought for it 
because they loved him. To them he represented cause, 
country, and all.” 74 

If we seek the origin of this extraordinary personal 
devotion, we shall be told that it was magnetism. Doubt¬ 
less there was some intangible element in the matter, 
something in the man’s bearing, something in his words, 
something in his lofty and passionate appeals, which won 
hearts and held them. A concrete instance of this power 
appears in General Alexander’s account of his desire to 
persuade Lee into keeping up a guerrilla warfare at the 
time of the surrender and of the effect of Lee’s answer: 
“ I had not a single word to say in reply. He had an- 


LEE AND HIS ARMY 


125 

swered my suggestion from a moral plane so far above 
it that I was ashamed of having made it. With several 
friends I had planned to make an escape on seeing a 
flag of truce, but that idea was at once abandoned by all 
of them on hearing my report. ,, 75 

I think, however, the general explanation of the sol¬ 
dier’s love for Lee is much simpler, elementary, in fact, 
and is contained in the nursery rhyme recording the ad¬ 
ventures of Mary and her little lamb. Lee loved his men 
and trusted them. It is curious to read Wellington’s ex¬ 
pressions of disgust and contempt for his Peninsular 
army, — the soldiers “were detestable for anything but 
fighting and the officers were as culpable as the 
men,”— 76 and then to turn to the words, ever varied, in 
which Lee declares over and over his confidence in his 
followers and affection for them. After Gettysburg he 
says to them : “You have fought a fierce and sanguin¬ 
ary battle, which, if not attended with the success that 
has hitherto crowned your efforts, was marked by the 
same heroic spirit which has commanded the respect of 
your enemies, the gratitude of your country, and the ad¬ 
miration of mankind.” 77 Without rhetoric, writing pri¬ 
vately, he says of them, “ I need not say to you that the 
material of which this army is composed is the best in 
the -world and if properly disciplined and instructed, 
would be able successfully to resist any force that could 
be brought against it. Nothing can surpass the gallantry 
and intelligence of the main body.” 78 And again, “ There 


126 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


never were such men in an army before. They will go 
anywhere and do anything, if properly led. ,, 79 His sol¬ 
diers were his children, and he mourned their loss with 
a parental passion of grief: “The loss of our gallant 
officers and men throughout the army causes me to 
weep tears of blood, and to wish that I could never hear 
the sound of a gun again.” 80 

Is it any wonder that his men loved him, or that their 
love grew with the years and after the war they haunted 
him with offers of service, offers of protection, offers of 
actual food, touching and pathetic, even when they were 
mixed with ill-timed drollery. Of all the numerous anec¬ 
dotes bearing on this point, one especially is full of tragic 
significance. Lee was riding alone through the woods 
on his beloved Traveler, when he met an old Confeder¬ 
ate. “ Oh, General,” said the fellow, “ it does me so 
much good to see you that I ’m going to cheer.” The 
general protested the utter inappropriateness. But the 
man cheered just the same. And as the great soldier 
passed slowly out of hearing through the Virginia for¬ 
est, it seems to me that his heart and his eyes must have 
overflowed at the thought of a great cause lost, of fidel¬ 
ity in ruin, and of the thousands and thousands and thou¬ 
sands who had cheered him once and in spirit would go 
on cheering him forever. 


VI 


LEE AND JACKSON 

JACKSON was a born fighter. In his youth he fought 
poverty. He fought for an education at West Point. 
There he fought his way through against prejudice and 
every disadvantage. Fighting in Mexico, he thoroughly 
enjoyed himself. As a professor at the Virginia Military 
Institute he probably did not. When the war came, it 
was a godsend to him; and he fought with every nerve 
in his body till he fell, shot by his own soldiers, at Chan- 
cellorsville. 

For pure intellectual power he does not seem to have 
been remarkable. He learned what he set out to learn, 
by sheer effort. What interested him he mastered. With¬ 
out doubt his restless, active mind would have fought 
abstract problems, if it had found nothing else to fight. 
But I do not imagine he loved thought for itself or had 
the calm breadth to study impersonally the great ques¬ 
tions of the world and flash sudden, sharp illumination 
on them, as did Napoleon. 

And Jackson had no personal charm. He was courte¬ 
ous, but with a labored courtesy; he was shy, abrupt, 
ungainly, forgetful, and apt to be withdrawn into him¬ 
self. His fellow students admired him, but shrank from 
him. His pupils laughed at his odd ways and did not 


128 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


always profit by his teaching. This, before his star shone 
out. And it is strange to contrast such neglect with the 
adoration that pressed close about his later glory. In Mar- 
tinsburg the ladies “ cut every button off his coat, com¬ 
menced on his pants, and at one time threatened to leave 
him in the uniform of a Georgia colonel — shirt-collar 
and spurs.” 1 Nothing similar is recorded of Lee — even 
humorously. 

It must not be supposed that, though unsuccessful in 
general society, Jackson lacked warmth or human kind¬ 
ness. He was sensitive, emotional, susceptible. He felt 
the charm of art in all its forms. He read Shakespeare, 
and quoted him in a military dispatch, — “ we must burn 
no more daylight,” 2 — as I cannot imagine Lee doing. 
When he was in Europe, he keenly enjoyed painting, 
and architecture, and loved to talk of them after his re¬ 
turn, entertaining the “Times” correspondent with a 
long discussion of English cathedrals, partly, to be sure, 
to avoid talk on things military. When in Mexico, he 
was charmed by the Mexican girls, so much so that he 
fled them, as Dr. Johnson fled Garrick’s ballet. 3 In his 
youth he was even a dancer. When age and religion 
came upon him, he used still to indulge for exercise in 
an occasional polka, “but,” as Mrs. Jackson remarks, 
deliciously, “ no eye but that of his wife was ever per¬ 
mitted to witness this recreation.” 4 In his family he was 
tender, affectionate, playful, sympathetic. He adored 
his little daughter and all children. “ His abandon was 





l ^ ' iS 






f ^ ' R; 



fc- -«=d- 



STONEWALL JACKSON 
(From the original drawing) 



























LEE AND JACKSON 129 

beautiful to see, provided there were only one or two 
people to see it. ” 5 His letters to his wife are ardent and 
devoted, full of an outpouring and self-revelation which 
one never finds in the printed letters of Lee. 

In short, he was a man with a soul of fire. Action was 
his life. To do something, to do high, heroic things, to 
do them with set lip and strained nerve and unflinching 
determination, — to him this was all the splendor of ex¬ 
istence. In his youth he had not learned Latin well and 
it was questioned whether he could do it in age. He 
said he could. He was set to teach matters that were 
strange to him and some doubted whether he could do it. 
He said he could. Extempore prayer came to him with 
difficulty, and his pastor advised his not attempting it, 
if he could not do it. He said he could. “ As to the rest, 
I knew that what I willed to do, I could do.” 6 Such a 
statement has its foolish side and takes us back to what 
I said above about Jackson’s intelligence. Pure intel¬ 
ligence sees insurmountable difficulties, too many and 
too plain. Jackson, if ever any man, came near to being 
pure will. 

It seems that his courage, flawless as it was, was cour¬ 
age of will rather than of stolid temperament “ He has 
told me,” says his sister-in-law, “that his first sight of a 
mangled and swollen corpse on a Mexican battlefield 
filled him with as much sickening dismay as if he had 
been a woman.” 7 And Dabney writes : “ It was not un¬ 
usual to see him pale and trembling with excitement at 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


130 

the firing of the first gun of an opening battle.” 8 Yet 
his power of concentration was so enormous that when 
he was thinking out a military problem he forgot bullet 
and shell and wounds and death. “ This was the true 
explanation of that seeming recklessness with which he 
sometimes exposed himself on the field of battle.” 9 
Also he had the magnetic faculty of extending to 
others his own furious determination. He could demand 
the impossible of them because he performed it himself. 
“ Come on,” he cried in Mexico, “ you see there is no 
danger.” 10 And a shot passed between his legs spread 
wide apart. His soldiers marched to death, when he 
bade them. What was even worse, they marched at the 
double through Virginia mud, without shoes, without 
food, without sleep. “ Did you order me to advance over 
that field, sir?” said an officer to him. “Yes,” said Jack- 
son. “ Impossible, sir! My men will be annihilated! 
Nothing can live there! They will be annihilated!” 

“General -,” said Jackson, “I always endeavor to 

take care of my wounded and to bury my dead. You 
have heard my order—obey it.” 11 

What was there back of this magnificent, untiring, in¬ 
exhaustible will and energy, what long dream of glory, 
what splendid hope of imperishable renown ? Or was it 
a blind energy, a mere restless thirst for action and ad¬ 
venture, unceasing, unquenchable? Something of the 
latter there was in it doubtless, of the love of danger for 
its pure nerve-thrill, its unrivaled magic of oblivion. 



LEE AND JACKSON 131 

“ Nothing is more certain than that this love of action, 
movement, danger, and adventure was a prominent trait 
in his organization,” says one of his earlier biogra¬ 
phers. 12 “ I envy you men who have been in battle. 
How I should like to be in one battle,” he remarked in 
Mexico; 13 and he confessed that to be under fire filled 
him with a “ delicious excitement.” 14 
Nevertheless, he was far enough from being a mere 
common sworder, or even the gay, careless fighter who 
does the day’s work and never looks beyond it. In his 
youth there can be no doubt that he dreamed dreams of 
immense advancement, of endless conquest, of triumph 
and admiration and success. During the war some one 
expressed the belief that Jackson was not ambitious. 
“ Ambitious! ” was the answer. “He is the most am¬ 
bitious man in the Confederacy.” We have his own 
reported words for his feelings at an earlier date. “ The 
only anxiety I was conscious of during the engagement 
was a fear lest I should not meet danger enough to 
make my conduct conspicuous.” 15 Most striking of all 
is Mrs. Preston’s picture of him before Wolfe’s monu¬ 
ment at Quebec. He “ swept his arm with a passionate 
movement around the plain and exclaimed, quoting 
Wolfe’s dying words , 1 1 die content, — ‘ to die as he died, 
who would not be content?’ ” 16 

Very little things often throw a fine light on character 
and difference of character. On one occasion, as the 
troops were marching by, they had been forbidden to 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


132 

cheer, lest the noise might betray them to the enemy. 
When Jackson’s own brigade passed their general, how¬ 
ever, their enthusiasm was too much for any prohibition, 
and they cheered loud and long. Jackson smiled as he 
listened, and turning to those beside him murmured, 
“ You see, I can’t stop them.” 17 Whether Lee had any 
ambition or not, it is difficult to imagine him betrayed 
into such a naive expression as this. The smile might 
have been possible for him, the words never. 

So in Jackson’s younger days his devouring ardor fed 
on w r orldly hopes. Then religion took possession of 
him, not suddenly, but with a gradual, fierce encroach¬ 
ment that in the end grasped every fibre of his being. 
Like a very similar nature in a different sphere, John 
Donne, he examined all creeds first, notably the Catho¬ 
lic, but finally settled in an austere and sturdy Calvinism. 
Not that his religion was gloomy or bitterly ascetic ; for 
it had great depths of love in it and sunny possibilities 
of joy. But it was all-absorbing and he fought the fight 
of God with the same fury that he gave to the battles of 
this world. There must be no weakness, no trifling, no 
inconsistency. “ He weighed his lightest utterance in 
the balance of the sanctuary,” writes one who knew him 
well. 18 Christians are enjoined to pray. Therefore Jack- 
son prayed always, even in association with the lightest 
act. “ I never raise a glass of water to my lips without lift¬ 
ing my heart to God in thanks and prayer for the water 
of life.” 19 They must remember the Sabbath day to keep 


LEE AND JACKSON 133 

it holy. Therefore Jackson not only refrained from writ¬ 
ing letters on Sunday : he would not read a letter on 
Sunday ; he even timed the sending of his own letters 
so that they should not encumber the mails on Sunday. 20 
It was the same with a scrupulous regard for truth. 
Every statement, even indifferent, must be exact, or, if 
inexact, corrected. And Jackson walked a mile in the 
rain to set right an error of inadvertence. 21 The wonder 
is that a man of such a temper accomplished anything in 
the world at all. I confess that I feel an unsanctified sat¬ 
isfaction in seeing the exigencies of war override and 
wither this dainty scrupulousness. It is true they cannot 
do it always. “ Had I fought the battle on Sunday in¬ 
stead of on Monday I fear our cause would have suf¬ 
fered.” 22 But then again, the Puritan Lee writes to the 
Puritan Jackson (italics mine): “I had hoped her own 
[Maryland’s] citizens would have relieved us of that 
question, and you must endeavor to give to the course you 
may find it necessary to pursue the appearance of its being 
the act of her own citizens .” 23 How many leagues the 
praying Jackson should have walked in the rain to cor¬ 
rect the fighting Jackson’s peccadilloes. 

And now how did Jackson’s ambition and his religion 
keep house together? His admirers maintain that re¬ 
ligion devoured the other motive completely. “ Duty 
alone constrained him to forego the happiness and com¬ 
forts of his beloved home for the daily hardships of a 
soldier’s life.” 24 But certain of his reported words in the 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


134 

very closing scene make me think that the thirst for 
glory was as ardent as ever, even if it had a little shifted 
its form. “ I would not agree to the slightest diminution 
of my glory there [in heaven], no, not for all the fame 
which I have acquired or shall ever win in this world.” 25 
It does not sound quite like the chastened spirit of a son 
of peace, does it ? 

No, the early Jackson and the late Jackson were the 
same Jackson. The blare of trumpets, the crash of guns, 
the cheers of an adoring army, were a passionate delight 
to him and would have been as long as he walked this 
fighting world. Only that will, which by itself was 
mighty force enough, was doubled and tripled in power 
when it got the will of God behind it. To gratify per¬ 
sonal ambition the man might have hesitated at destruc¬ 
tion and slaughter. But to do his duty, to carry out the 
designs of Providence, — that mission must override all 
obstacles and subdue all scruples. In face of it human 
agony counted simply as nothing. Henderson, who is re¬ 
luctant to find shadows in his idol, questions the authen¬ 
ticity of Jackson’s interview with his brother-in-law, as 
reported by Mrs. Jackson; but I am perfectly ready to be¬ 
lieve that the hero of the Valley declared for hoisting the 
black flag and giving “ no quarter to the violators of our 
homes and firesides.” 26 Certainly it is not denied that 
when he was asked how to dispose of the overwhelming 
numbers of the enemy, his answer was, “ Kill them, sir ! 
kill every man 1 ” 27 And again, when some one deplored 


LEE AND JACKSON 135 

the necessity of destroying so many brave men, “No, 
shoot them all; I do not wish them to be brave.” 28 

Such a tremendous instrument as this might have 
gone anywhere and done anything, and if Jackson had 
lived, his future defies prevision. “No man had so mag¬ 
nificent a prospect before him as General Jackson,” wrote 
Lawley, the correspondent of the “ London Times.” 
“ Whether he desired it or not, he could not have es¬ 
caped being Governor of Virginia, and also, in the opin¬ 
ion of many competent judges, sooner or later President 
of the Confederacy.” 29 But this regular method of 
ascent would have been slow. When things went wrong, 
when politicians intrigued and triumphed, when the 
needs of the army were slighted and forgotten for petty 
jealousies, Jackson would have been just the one to have 
cried out, “Here is man’s will, where is God’s will?” — 
just the one to have felt God’s strength in his own right 
arm, to have purged war offices, and turned out con¬ 
gresses, and made incompetent presidents feel that they 
must give up to those who saw more clearly and judged 
more wisely. There would have been no selfishness in 
all this, no personal ambition, because it would have 
been just doing the will of God. And I can perfectly 
imagine Jackson riding such a career and overwhelming 
every obstacle in his way except one — Robert E. Lee. 

When Jackson and Lee first met does not appear. 
Jackson said early in the war that he had known Lee 
for twenty-five years. They may have seen something 


136 LEE THE AMERICAN 

of each other in Mexico. If so, there seems to be no 
record of it. At any rate, Jackson thought well of Lee 
from the first, and said of him when he was appointed 
to command the Virginia forces, “ His services I regard 
as of more value to us than General Scott could render 
as a commander. ... It is understood that General 
Lee is to be commander-in-chief. I regard him as a 
better officer than General Scott.” 30 

From the beginning the lieutenant’s loyalty to his 
chief grew steadily ; not only his loyalty but his personal 
admiration and affection. I like the elementary expres¬ 
sion of it, showing unconsciously Jackson’s sense of 
some of his own deficiencies, in his remark to McGuire, 
after visiting Lee in the hospital: “ General Lee is the 
most perfect animal form I ever saw.” 31 But illustra¬ 
tions on a somewhat broader plane are abundant 
enough. “ General Lee has always been very kind to 
me and I thank him,” said Jackson simply, as he lay on 
his deathbed. 32 The enthusiasm of that ardent nature 
was ever ready to show itself in an almost over-zealous 
devotion. Lee once sent word that he should be glad to 
talk with his subordinate at his convenience on some 
matter of no great urgency. Jackson instantly rode to 
headquarters through the most inclement weather. When 
Lee expressed surprise at seeing him, the other an¬ 
swered: “General Lee’s lightest wish is a supreme com¬ 
mand to me, and I always take pleasure in prompt 
obedience.” 33 If we consider what Jackson’s nature 


LEE AND JACKSON f 137 

was, it is manifest that he gave the highest possible 
proof of loyalty, when it was suggested that he should 
return to an individual command in the Valley, and he 
answered that he did not desire it, but in every way 
preferred a subordinate position near General Lee. 34 

Jackson’s personal affection for Lee was, of course, in¬ 
timately bound up with confidence in his military ability. 
Even in the early days, when Jackson had been in vain 
demanding reinforcements and word was brought of 
Lee’s appointment to supreme command, Jackson’s com¬ 
ment was, “Well, madam, I am reinforced at last.” 35 
On various occasions, when others doubted Lee’s judg¬ 
ment or questioned his decisions, Jackson was entirely 
in agreement with his chief. For instance, Longstreet 
disapproved Lee’s determination to fight at Sharpsburg, 
and Ropes and other critics have since condemned it. 
Jackson, however, though he had no part in it, gave it 
his entire and hearty approval. 

I do not find anywhere, even in the most private let¬ 
ters, a disposition in Jackson to quarrel with Lee’s plans 
or criticize his arrangements. On the contrary, when 
objections are made, he is ready to answer them, and 
eagerly, and heartily. “ General Lee is equal to any 
emergency that may arise. I trust implicitly in his great 
ability and superior wisdom.” 36 Jackson had plans of 
his own and sometimes talked of them. He was asked 
why he did not urge them upon Lee. “ I have done so,” 
was his answer. “And what does he say to them?” 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


138 

“ He says nothing. But do not understand that I com¬ 
plain of this silence ; it is proper that General Lee should 
observe it. He is wise and prudent. He feels that he 
bears a fearful responsibility and he is right in declining 
a hasty expression of his purpose to a subordinate like 
me.” 37 Again, some one found fault with Lee’s slow¬ 
ness. Jackson contradicted warmly: “General Lee is 
not slow. No one knows the weight upon his heart, his 
great responsibility. He is commander-in-chief and he 
knows that if an army is lost, it cannot be replaced. No 1 
There may be some persons whose good opinion of me 
will make them attach some weight to my views, and if 
you ever hear that said of General Lee, I beg you will 
contradict it in my name. I have known General Lee 
for twenty-five years; he is cautious; he ought to be. 
But he is not slow.” 38 And he concluded with one of 
the finest expressions of loyalty ever uttered by a sub¬ 
ordinate, and such a subordinate: “ Lee is a phenomenon. 
He is the only man I could follow blindfold.” 39 After 
this, who can question the sincerity of the words spoken 
on his deathbed: “Better that ten Jacksons should fall 
than one Lee ? ” 40 

And what did Lee think of Jackson ? As always, Lee’s 
judgments are more difficult to get at. In spite of all 
respect and all affection, I cannot but think that his large 
humanity shrank a little from Jackson’s ardors. When 
he told a lady, with gentle playfulness, that General 
Jackson, “who was smiling so pleasantly near her, was 


LEE AND JACKSON 139 

the most cruel and inhuman man she had ever seen,” 41 
I have no doubt it was ninety-nine parts playfulness, but 
perhaps there was one part, one little part, earnest. Even 
after Antietam his military commendation of Jackson 
was very restrained, to say the least. “ My opinion of the 
merits of General Jackson has been greatly enhanced 
during this expedition. He is true, honest, and brave, has 
a single eye to the good of the service, and spares no 
exertions to accomplish his object.” 42 No superlatives 
here. Sharp words of criticism, even, are reported, which, 
inexplicable as they sound, seem to come with excellent 
authority. “ Jackson was by no means so rapid a marcher 
as Longstreet and had an unfortunate habit of never 
being on time.” 43 

Yet Lee’s deep affection for his great lieutenant and 
perfect confidence in him are beyond question. It has 
been well pointed out that this was proved practically 
by the fact that the commander-in-chief always himself 
remained with Longstreet and left Jackson to operate 
independently, as if the former were more in need of 
personal supervision. Lee’s own written words to Jack- 
son are also — for Lee—very enthusiastic: “Your re¬ 
cent successes have been the cause of the liveliest joy in 
this army as well as in the country. The admiration ex¬ 
cited by your skill and boldness has been constantly 
mingled with solicitude for your situation.” 44 Jackson’s 
wound and death and the realization of his loss pro¬ 
duced expressions of a warmth so unusual as to be almost 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


140 

startling. “ If I had had Stonewall Jackson at Gettys* 
burg, I should have won that battle.’’ 45 “ Such an execu¬ 
tive officer the sun never shone on. I have but to show 
him my design, and I know that if it can be done it will 
be done.” 46 The messages sent to the dying general are 
as appreciative as they are tender. “You are better off 
than I am, for while you have only lost your left, I have 
lost my right arm.” 47 “Tell him that I wrestled in 
prayer for him last night, as I never prayed, I believe, 
for myself.” 48 (Yet if the words are correctly reported, 
note even here the most characteristic Lee-like modifica¬ 
tion, I believe .) And only those who are familiar with 
Lee can appreciate the agony of the partiug outcry, 
“‘Jackson will not — he cannot die!’ General Lee ex¬ 
claimed, in a broken voice and waving every one from 
him with his hand, ‘ he cannot die.’ ” 49 

The study of the practical military relations of the two 
great commanders is of extreme interest. Lee does not 
hesitate to advise Jackson as freely as he would any 
other subordinate. “ It was to save you the abundance 
of hard fighting that I ventured to suggest for your con¬ 
sideration not to attack the enemy’s strong points, but to 
turn his positions at Warrenton, etc., so as to draw him 
out of them. I would rather you should have easy fight¬ 
ing and heavy victories. I must leave the matter to your 
reflection and cool judgment.” 50 He even frequently 
gives a sharp order which approaches sternness : “You 
must use your discretion and judgment in these matters, 


LEE AND JACKSON 141 

and be careful to husband the strength of your command 
as much as possible.” 51 And again: “ Do not let your 
troops run down, if it can possibly be avoided by atten¬ 
tion to their wants, comforts, etc., by their respective 
commanders. This will require your personal atten¬ 
tion.” 52 

Jackson seems usually to have accepted all this with 
unquestioning submission. It is true that Longstreet is 
said once to have accused him of disrespect because he 
groaned audibly at one of Lee’s decisions. 63 But Long- 
street was a little too watchful for those groans. Also, 
on one occasion, when Lee proposed some redistribution 
of artillery, Jackson protested, rather for his soldiers than 
for himself: “ General D. H. Hill’s artillery wants ex¬ 
isted at the time he was assigned to my command, and 
it is hoped that artillery which belonged to the Army of 
the Valley will not be taken to supply his wants.” 64 But, 
for the most part, the lieutenant writes in the respectful, 
affectionate, and trustful tone which he adopted at the 
very beginning of the war and maintained until the end: 
“ I would be more than grateful, could you spare the 
time for a short visit here to give me the benefit of your 
wisdom and experience in laying out the works, espe¬ 
cially those on the heights.” 55 

Jackson’s complete submission to Lee is the more 
striking, because, though a theoretical believer in sub¬ 
ordination, he was not by nature peculiarly adapted to 
working under the orders of others. Some, who knew 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


142 

him well, have gone so far as to say that “ his genius 
never shone under command of another.” 56 This is ab¬ 
surd enough considering his later battles; but it seems 
to me that some such explanation may be sought for 
his comparative inefficiency on the Peninsula, as to which 
almost all critics are agreed. It was physical exhaustion, 
says Dabney. It was poor staff service, says Henderson. 
Is it not possible that, accustomed hitherto to working 
with an absolutely free hand, his very desire to be only 
an executive and carry out Lee’s orders may, far the 
time, to some extent, have paralyzed his own initiative ? 

However that may be, there is no doubt that Jackson 
did not take kindly to dictation from Richmond. It is said 
that on one occasion he wrote to the War Office request¬ 
ing that he might have fewer orders and more men. 57 It 
is certain that he complained bitterly to Lee of the custom 
of sending him officers without previous consultation. “ I 
have had much trouble resulting from incompetent officers 
being assigned to duty with me, regardless of my wishes. 
Those who have assigned them have never taken the re¬ 
sponsibility of incurring the odium which results from such 
incompetence.” 58 And very early in his career he had a 
sharp clash with Secretary Benjamin, who had attempted 
to interfere in the detail of military arrangements. Jackson 
sent in his resignation at once, explaining that his services 
could be of no use, if he was to be hampered by remote 
and ill-informed control. The fact of the resignation, 
which was withdrawn by the kindly offices of Johnston 


LEE AND JACKSON 143 

and Governor Letcher, is of less interest than the spirit 
in which Jackson offered it. When it was represented to 
him that the Government had proceeded without under¬ 
standing the circumstauces, he replied : “ Certainly they 
have; but they must be taught not to act so hastily 
without a full knowledge of the facts. I can teach them 
this lesson now by my resignation and the country will 

* 

be no loser by it.” 59 Was I wrong in saying that this 
man would have ridden over anything and anybody, if 
he had thought it his duty? Such summary methods 
may have been wise, they may have been effective : they 
were certainly very unlike Lee’s. 

Now let us turn from Jackson’s superiors to his infe¬ 
riors. The common soldier loved him. It was not for any 
jolly comradeship, not for any fascinating magnetism of 
personal charm or heroic eloquence. He was a hard task¬ 
master, exacting and severe. “Whatever of personal 
magnetism existed in Stonewall Jackson,” says his par¬ 
tial biographer, “found no utterance in words. Whilst 
his soldiers struggled painfully towards Romney in the 
teeth of the winter storm, his lips were never opened 
save for sharp rebuke or peremptory order.” 60 But the 
men had confidence in him. He had got them out of 
many a difficulty and something in his manner told them 
that he would get them out of any difficulty. The sight 
of his old uniform and scrawny sorrel horse stirred all 
their nerves and made them march and fight as they 
could not have done for another man. And then they 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


144 

knew that though he was harsh, he was just. He ex¬ 
pected great things of them, but he would do great 
things for them. He would slaughter them mercilessly 
to win a victory; but when it was won he would give 
them the glory, under God, and would cherish the sur¬ 
vivors with a parent’s tenderness. “We do not regard 
him as a severe disciplinarian,” writes one of them, “ as 
a politician, as a man seeking popularity, — but as a 
Christian, a brave man who appreciates the condition of 
a common soldier, as a fatherly protector, as one who 
endures all hardship in common with his followers, who 
never commands others to face danger without putting 
himself in the van.” 61 

But with his officers it was somewhat different. They 
did indeed trust his leadership and admire his genius. 
How could they help it? It is said that all the staff offi¬ 
cers of the army at large liked him. 62 And Mrs. Jackson 
declares that his own staff were devoted to him, as they 
probably were. Yet even she admits that they resented 
his rigid punctuality and early hours. And there is no 
doubt that in these particulars and in many others he 
asked all that men were capable of and sometimes a 
little more. “ General Jackson,” says one of his staff, “ de¬ 
manded of his subordinates implicit obedience. He gave 
orders in his own peculiar, terse, rapid fashion, and he 
did not permit them to be questioned.” 63 General Ewell 
is said to have remarked that he never “saw one of 
Jackson’s couriers approach him without expecting an 


LEE AND JACKSON 145 

order to assault the North Pole.” 64 On one occasion he 
had given his staff directions to breakfast at dawn and 
to be in the saddle immediately after. The general ap¬ 
peared at daybreak — and one officer. Jackson lost his 
temper. “Major, how is it that this staff never will be 
punctual?” When the major attempted some apology 
for the others, his chief turned to the servant in a rage. 
“ Put back that food into the chest, have that chest in 
the wagon, and that wagon moving in two minutes.” 65 

Also Jackson had a habit of keeping everything to 
himself. This may have been a great military advantage. 
It was a source of constant amusement to the soldiers. 
Jackson met one of them one day in some place where 
he should not have been. “What are you doing here?” 
“ I don’t know.” “ Where do you come from ? ” “I don’t 
know.” When asked the meaning of this extraordinary 
ignorance, the man explained, “ Orders were that we 
should n’t know anything till after the next fight.” Jack- 
son laughed and passed on. 66 

But the officers did not like it. Jackson made his own 
plans and took care of his own responsibilities. Even his 
most trusted subordinates were often told to go to this 
or that place with no explanation of the object of their 
going. They went, but they sometimes went without 
enthusiasm. And Jackson was no man for councils of 
war. Others’ judgment might be as good as his, but only 
one judgment must settle matters, and his was for the 
time to be that one. 








LEE THE AMERICAN 


146 

Hence his officers fretted and he quarreled with some 
of the best of them. And when things did not go right, 
with him it was the guardhouse instantly. All five regi¬ 
mental commanders of the Stonewall Brigade were once 
under arrest at the same time. 67 The gallant Ashby, just 
before his last charge and death, had a sharp bit of fric¬ 
tion with his superior. When Gregg lay dying, he sent 
to the general to apologize for a letter recently written 
“ in which he used words that he is now sorry for . . . 
He hopes you will forgive him. ,, 68 Jackson forgave him 
heartily; but he could not have deathbed reconciliations 
with all of them. 

In some of these cases Lee was obliged to interfere, 
notably in that of A. P. Hill. Hill was a splendid soldier. 
Lee loved him. By a strange coincidence his name was 
on the dying lips of Lee and Jackson both. But he was 
fiery and impetuous and did not hesitate to criticize 
even the commander-in-chief with hearty freedom. He 
chafed sorely under Jackson’s arbitrary methods. Lee, 
in recommending him, foresaw this, and tried to insinu¬ 
ate a little caution. “A. P. Hill you will, I think, find 
a good officer, with whom you can consult, and, by ad¬ 
vising with your division commanders as to your move¬ 
ments, much trouble will be saved you in arranging 
details, and they can aid more intelligently.” 69 

It was quite useless. The two fiery tempers clashed im¬ 
mediately. Jackson put his subordinate under arrest more 
than once In the “Official Records” we may read the 


LEE AND JACKSON 147 

painful but very curious correspondence in which the two 
laid their grievances before Lee and Lee with patient tact 
tried to do justice to both. “If,” says Hill, “ the charges 
preferred against me by General Jackson are true, I do 
not deserve to command a division in this army; if they 
are untrue, then General Jackson deserves a rebuke as 
notorious as the arrest.” 70 It is said that Lee at last 
brought the two together, and, “after hearing their 
several statements, walking gravely to and fro, said, 
‘He who has been the most aggrieved can be the most 
magnanimous and make the first overture of peace.’ 

This wise verdict forever settled their differences.” 71 

‘ 

Forever is a long word, but surely no judgment of 
Solomon or Sancho Panza could be neater. 

Lee’s relations with Jackson as to strategy and tactics 
are no less interesting than the disciplinary. Some of 
Jackson’s admirers seem inclined to credit him with Lee’s 
best generalship, especially with the brilliant and suc¬ 
cessful movements which resulted in the victories of the 
Second Bull Run and of Chancellorsville. Just how far 
each general was responsible for those movements can 
never be exactly determined. The conception of flank 
attacks would appear to be an elementary device to any 
military mind. Lee certainly was sufficiently prone to 
them and urged them upon Jackson at an early stage, as 
is shown by a passage quoted above. 72 It is in nice and 
perfect execution that the difficulty lies, and in the deli¬ 
cate adjustment of that execution to the handling of the 







148 LEE THE AMERICAN 

army as a whole; and in this Lee and Jackson probably 
formed as wonderful a pair of military geniuses as ever 
existed. 

As to Lee’s initiative, it can be easily shown that even 
in the first Valley campaign he had, to say the least, a 
most sympathetic and prophetic comprehension of Jack¬ 
son’s action. If Jackson may possibly have conceived the 
plan of the Second Bull Run campaign, it was Lee who 
designed the tactics of Gaines’s Mill, that Jackson failed 
to carry out. At a later date, just before Fredericksburg, 
when Jackson was again operating in the Valley, Hen¬ 
derson, in the absence of authentic data, assumes that 
the lieutenant was anxious to realize some flanking con¬ 
ception of his own and that Lee assented to it. This may 
be so, but a few weeks later still, when the battle was im- 
minent, Lee expresses himself to a very different effect. 
“ In previous letters I suggested the advantages that 
might be derived by your taking position at Warrenton 
or Culpeper, with a view to threaten the rear of the 
enemy at Fredericksburg. ... As my previous sugges¬ 
tions to you were left to be executed or not at your dis¬ 
cretion, you are still at liberty to follow or reject them.” 73 

The case that has aroused most controversy, one of 
those delightful problems that can be always discussed 
and never settled, is that of Chancellorsville. The facts, 
so far as they can be gathered from conflicting accounts, 
seem to be as follows. On the night of May i, Hooker 
had withdrawn to Chancellorsville. Lee and Jackson met 


LEE AND JACKSON 149 

and talked over the state of things. Examination had 
shown that to attack Hooker’s left and centre was out of 
the question. On the other hand, reports received from 
the cavalry made it appear that the right might be as¬ 
sailed with advantage. Lee decided on this and ordered 
Jackson to make the movement. Jackson then secured 
further information, elaborated his plans accordingly, 
and acted on them with Lee’s approval. 

Evidently this statement leaves many loopholes, but it 
is impossible to be more definite, or to say just where 
Lee’s conception ended and Jackson’s began. If we turn 
for information to the two principal actors, we shall not 
progress much. “ I congratulate you upon the victory 
which is due to your skill and energy,” 74 says Lee; but this 
passing of compliments means no more than Jackson’s 
general acknowledgment: “ All the credit of my successes 
belongs to General Lee; they were his plans and I only 
executed his orders.” 75 Jackson’s special comment is not 
more helpful: “ Our movement was a great success ; I 
think the most successful military movement of my life. 
But I expect to receive more credit for it than I deserve. 
Most men will think that I planned it all from the first, 
but it was not so.” 76 — “ Ah,” we interrupt, “this is mag¬ 
nanimous. He is going to give the credit to Lee.” — Not 
at all; he is only going to give it to God. Nor does Lee’s 
letter to Mrs. Jackson make matters much clearer. “I 
decided against it [front attack] and stated to General 
Jackson we must move on our left as soon as practicable; 







LEE THE AMERICAN 


150 

and the necessary movement of troops began immedi¬ 
ately. In consequence of a report received about this 
time from General Fitzhugh Lee, . . . General Jackson, 
after some inquiry, undertook to throw his command 
entirely in Hooker’s rear.” 77 

What interests me in the controversy is not the de¬ 
bated point, which cannot seriously affect the greatness 
of either party concerned, but the characteristic reserve 
of Lee, as shown in the last sentence above quoted, and 
far more in the letter to Dr. Bledsoe, written, says Jones, 
in answer to a “ direct question whether the flank move¬ 
ment at Chancellorsville originated with Jackson or with 
himself.” Lee’s reply is so curious that I quote the im¬ 
portant part of it entire. 

I have learned from others that the various authors of the 
life of Jackson award to him the credit of the success gained 
by the Army of Northern Virginia where he was present, and 
describe the movements of his corps or command as inde¬ 
pendent of the general plan of operations and undertaken 
at his own suggestion and upon his own responsibility. 

I have the greatest reluctance to say anything that might 
be considered as detracting from his well-deserved fame, for 
I believe no one was more convinced of his worth or appre¬ 
ciated him more highly than myself; yet your knowledge of 
military affairs, if you have none of the events themselves, 
will teach you that this could not have been so. Every move¬ 
ment of an army must be well considered and properly 
ordered, and every one who knew General Jackson must know 
that he was too good a soldier to violate this fundamental 


LEE AND JACKSON 151 

principle. In the operations around Chancellorsville, I over¬ 
took General Jackson, who had been placed in command of 
the advance, as the skirmishers of the approaching armies 
met, advanced with the troops to the Federal line of defenses, 
and was on the field until their whole army recrossed the 
Rappahannock. 

There is no question as to who was responsible for the oper¬ 
ations of the Confederates, or to whom any failure would 
have been charged . 78 

The more I read this letter, the less I understand it. 
It does not answer Bledsoe’s question at all, makes no 
attempt to answer it. Instead, it tells us that Jackson did 
not rob Lee of the command, or the responsibility, or the 
glory. Who ever supposed he did ? And why did Lee 
write so? Did he wish to leave Jackson the credit of in¬ 
itiative in the matter? It sounds as if he wished the pre¬ 
cise contrary, which is quite impossible. Or did he miss 
the whole point, which seems equally impossible ? This 
letter, like many others, goes far to reconcile me to the 
loss of the memoirs that Lee did not write. I feel sure 
that with the best intentions in the world he would have 
left untold a great deal that we desire to know. 

It is hardly necessary to say that in a comparison of 
Lee and Jackson the question of just how far either one 
originated the military designs which covered both with 
glory is not really very essential. I hope that I have 
already indicated the difference between them. Perhaps 
in their religion it is as significant as in anything. To 
both religion was the main issue of life; but in Lee 


152 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


religion never tyrannized; in Jackson I think it did. Lee 
said that “ duty was the sublimest word in the language.” 
Nevertheless, if he had heard Mrs. Jackson’s remark that 
her husband “ ate, as he did everything else, from a sense 
of duty,” 79 I think he would have smiled and observed 
that it might be well occasionally to eat for pure pleas¬ 
ure. It would be most unjust to say that Jackson’s was 
a religion of hell; but it would be nobly true to say that 
Lee’s was a religion of heaven. It would be fairer to both 
to speak of Jackson’s as a devouring fire, of Lee’s as a 
pure and vivifying light. Indeed, especially in compari¬ 
son with Jackson, this idea of light satisfies me better for 
Lee than anything else. His soul was tranquil and serene 
and broadly luminous, with no dark corner in it for vio¬ 
lence or hate. 

And, although I speak with humility in such a matter, 
may we not say that the military difference between the 
two was something the same? It is possible that Jackson 
could strike harder, possible even that he could see as 
deeply and as justly as his great commander. I think 
that Lee had the advantage in breadth, in just that one 
quality of sweet luminousness. He could draw all men 
unto him. What a splendid mastery it must have been 
that kept, on the one hand, the perfect friendship and con¬ 
fidence of the high-strung, sensitive, and jealous Davis, 
and on the other, the unquestioning loyalty, affection, 
and admiration of a soul so swift and haughty and 
violent as that of Jackson! 


VII 


LEE IN BATTLE 

Any study of Lee would be incomplete without portrayal 
of him in the greatest crises of all. For my purpose it 
would have been convenient if some keen-sighted jour¬ 
nalist could have accompanied the general in his various 
battles and left a stenographic report of where he went 
and what he said and what he did. Unfortunately the 
many memoir writers who were in a good position to 
observe were at the time, for the most part, excellently 
occupied with their own affairs. Therefore I ask in vain 
as to Lee’s whereabouts and action at certain very 
critical moments. 

We like to imagine the master mind in a great con¬ 
flict controlling everything, down to the minutest detail. 
But with vast modern armies this is far from being the 
case, even with the elaborate electrical facilities of to¬ 
day ; and in Lee’s time those facilities were much less 
complete. Lee himself indicated this humorously when 
he was remonstrated with for running unnecessary risk 
and answered : “ I wish some one would tell me my 
proper place in battle. I am always told I should not be 
where I am.” 1 And he expressed it with entire serious¬ 
ness when he said, in words in part already quoted: 
“ My interference in battle would do more harm than 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


154 

good. I have, then, to rely on my brigade and division 
commanders. I think and work with all my power to 
bring the troops to the right place at the right time; 
then I have done my duty. As soon as I order them for¬ 
ward into battle, I leave my army in the hands of God.” 2 
Some critics hold that Lee was inclined to carry the 
principle too far. What impresses me in this, as in other 
things, is the nice balance of his gifts. Persons by nature 
disposed to direct others almost always seek to direct 
in everything. How wise and constant Lee’s guidance 
was, where he thought it needed, is shown by his son’s 
remark : “We were always fully instructed as to the best 
way to get to Lexington, and, indeed, all the roads of 
life were carefully marked out for us by him.” 3 Yet the 
moment he reached the limit of what he thought was his 
province, he drew back and left decision to others whom 
he felt to be, by nature or training, better qualified. 

The amount of Lee’s direction and influence seems to 
have varied greatly in different battles. At Fredericks¬ 
burg he adopted a central position whence he could 
survey the whole field. Colonel Long’s remarks in de¬ 
scribing this must have given Longstreet exquisite pleas¬ 
ure. “ In the battle Longstreet had his headquarters at 
the same place, so that Lee was able to keep his hand 
on the rein of his ‘old war-horse’ and to direct him 
where to apply his strength.” 4 At Antietam critics are 
agreed that Lee’s management of things was perfect. 
“ He utilized every available soldier: throughout the day 


LEE IN BATTLE 


155 

he controlled the Confederate operations over the whole 
field.” 5 On the other hand, in the Peninsular battles, 
owing perhaps, to imperfect organization and staff ar¬ 
rangements, his hold on the machine was much less 
complete; and at Gettysburg the vast extension of his 
lines made immediate personal direction almost impos¬ 
sible, with results that were disastrous. 

It is at Gettysburg that we get one of the most vivid 
of the few pictures left us of Lee in the very midst of 
the crash and tumult of conflict. This is from the excel¬ 
lent pen of General Alexander, who says that the com- 
mander-in-chief rode up entirely alone, just after Pickett’s 
charge, “ and remained with me for a long time. He 
then probably first appreciated the extent of the disaster, 
as the disorganized stragglers made their way back past 
us. . . . It was certainly a momentous thing to him to 
see that superb attack end in such a bloody repulse. But, 
whatever his emotions, there was no trace of them in his 
calm and self-possessed bearing. I thought at that time 
his coming there very imprudent and the absence of all 
his staff officers and couriers strange. It could only have 
happened by his express intention. I have since thought 
it possible that he came, thinking the enemy might follow 
in pursuit of Pickett, personally to rally stragglers about 
our guns and make a desperate defense. He had the in¬ 
stincts of a soldier within him as strongly as any man. 
... No soldier could have looked on at Pickett’s charge 
and not burned to be in it. To have a personal part in 


156 LEE THE AMERICAN 

a close and desperate fight at that moment, would, I 
believe, have been at heart a great pleasure to General 
Lee and possibly he was looking for one.” 6 

And I ask myself how much of that born soldier’s lust 
for battle, keen enjoyment of danger and struggle and 
combat, Lee really had. Certainly there is little record of 
his speaking of any such feeling. At various times he 
expressed a deep sense of all the horrors of war. “You 
have no idea of what a horrible sight a battlefield is.” 7 
And again: “What a cruel thing is war ; to separate and 
destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and 
happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our 
hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and 
to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.” 8 Yet 
we must remember that at the time of his great military 
glory Lee was an old man and the fury of hot blood was 
tempered in him. I imagine that he found an intense de¬ 
light in Mexico, “ when the musket balls and grape were 
whistling over my head in a perfect shower,” 9 and when 
he was threading his way alone in night and solitude 
through the murky pitfalls of the Pedregal. Even at a 
later time one vivid sentence, spoken in the midst of the 
slaughter of Fredericksburg, lights the man’s true in¬ 
stincts, like a flash: “ It is well that war is so terrible, 
or else we might grow too fond of it.” 10 

As to Lee’s personal courage, of course the only point 
to be discussed is the peculiar quality of it. Judging from 
his character generally and from all that is recorded of 


LEE IN BATTLE 


i 57 

him, I should not take it to be a temperamental indiffer¬ 
ence to danger, a stolid disregard of its very existence, 
such as we find perhaps in Grant or Wellington. Though 
far from being a highly nervous organization, Lee was 
sensitive, imaginative; and he probably had to accus¬ 
tom himself to being under fire and was always per¬ 
fectly aware of any elements of peril there might be 
about him. By the time the war broke out, however, he 
was doubtless as indifferent to bullets as to raindrops, 
and went where duty took him without a moment’s 
thought* of the result. 

Testimony to his entire coolness in battle is abundant 
enough. I do not know of any more striking statement 
than Scheibert’s. “ During the battle of Chancellorsville, 
at the very crisis of the struggle, I happened to be stand¬ 
ing beside the general under fire and in full view of 
a very interesting episode of the fight. I was astonished 
when, in spite of the excitement natural to such a scene, 
he . . . began to converse with me about popular educa¬ 
tion.” 11 A vivid concrete instance of self-possession in 
the midst of turmoil is narrated by a Union soldier: “A 
prisoner walked up to him and told him a rebel had 
stolen his hat. In the midst of his orders he stopped and 
told the rebel to give back the hat and saw that he done 
it, too.” 12 

I am not aware that Lee was wounded at any time 
during the war, or indeed in his life, except slightly at 
Chapultepec. His hands were severely injured just before 


158 LEE THE AMERICAN 

Antietam, but this was by the falling of his horse. He 
was, however, constantly under fire. At Antietam A. P. 
Hill, who was close to the general, had his horse’s fore 
legs shot off. On another occasion, when Lee was sitting 
with Stuart and his staff, “a shell fell plump in their 
midst, burying in the earth with itself one of General 
Lee’s gauntlets, which lay on the ground only a few feet 
from the general himself.” 13 In 1864 Lee was inspecting 
the lines below Richmond and the number of soldiers 
gathered about him drew the enemy’s fire rather heavily. 
The general ordered the men back out of range and 
himself followed at his leisure; but it was observed that 
he stopped to pick up something. A fledgling sparrow 
had fallen out of its nest and he took it from the ground 
and tenderly replaced it, with the bullets whistling 
around him. 14 

As in this case, Lee was always extremely solicitous 
about the unnecessary exposure of his men. Once, when 
he was watching the effect of the fire from an advanced 
battery, a staff officer rode up to him by the approach 
which was least protected. The general reprimanded 
him for his carelessness, and when the young man 
urged that he could not seek cover himself while his 
chief was in the open, Lee answered sharply: “ It is my 
duty to be here. Go back the way I told you, sir.” 15 At 
another time Lee had placed himself in a very exposed 
position, to the horror of all his officers. They could not 
prevail upon him to come down, so finally General 


LEE IN BATTLE 


159 

Grade stepped forward and interposed himself between 
his commander and the enemy. “Why, Grade,” pro¬ 
tested Lee, “ you will certainly be killed.” “ It is better, 
General, that I should be killed than you. When you 
get down, I will.” Lee smiled and got down. 16 

No protest and no entreaty, however, could make the 
commander-in-chief protect himself as much as his offi¬ 
cers wished. Perhaps the most amusing instance of this 
is an experience of Lee and Davis together in the early 
days on the Peninsula. They were riding side by side 
under fire when Davis realized the danger and urged his 
companion to withdraw. Lee returned the compliment. 
Then they both forgot all about it, till A. P. Hill rode up 
and begged them to go back. They withdrew a few feet, 
without mending matters much, till finally Hill reap¬ 
peared and insisted that they should betake themselves 
to some position out of range. 17 

When matters became really critical, Lee completely 
threw aside all caution. In the terrific battles of the 
Wilderness, where at times it seemed as if Grant would 
succeed in effecting a permanent break, the Confederate 
general repeatedly (on three separate occasions, as it 
appears) rushed to the front to rally his men and charge, 
like Ney or Murat, at the head of them. “ Go back, Gen¬ 
eral Lee, go back,” shouted the soldiers. But he would 
not go back till they had promised to do as much for 
him as they could have done with him. And they did as 
much. No men could have done more. 18 


160 LEE THE AMERICAN 

It was this occasional fury of combativeness which 
made Longstreet assert that the general was sometimes 
unbalanced, not by any personal exposure or excitement, 
but by critical situations affecting the army as a whole. 
Longstreet, defending his own conduct at Gettysburg, 
urges that Lee was particularly overwrought at the time 
of that battle. In what is, to say the least, peculiar phrase¬ 
ology, the lieutenant writes of his commander: “ That he 
was excited and off his balance was evident on the after¬ 
noon of the first, and that he labored under that oppres¬ 
sion till blood enough was shed to appease him.” 19 The 
suggestion that Lee required blood to appease him is 
grotesque and his loyal admirers ridicule the idea that 
at Gettysburg he was unbalanced. But there is evidence 
beside Longstreet’s that, once in a fight, he hated to 
give it up and perhaps occasionally allowed his ardor to 
overcome his discretion. The Prussian officer Scheibert 
remarks that, while at Chancellorsville Lee was admir¬ 
ably calm, at Gettysburg he was restless and uneasy. 20 
General Anderson bears witness that at Gettysburg his 
chief was “ very much disturbed and depressed.” 21 Curi¬ 
ous independent testimony to a relation between Lee 
and Longstreet just before the final surrender, precisely 
similar to what Longstreet depicts at Gettysburg, is 
furnished by Captain Ranson in “ Harper’s Magazine,” 
though I confess I cannot quite adjust it to Longstreet’s 
own narrative. The captain involuntarily overheard a 
conversation between the two generals. “I must have 


LEE IN BATTLE 


161 


slept for an hour at least when again I was awakened by 
the loud, almost fierce tones of General Lee, saying, 
‘I tell you, General Longstreet, I will strike that man 
[Grant] a blow in the morning.’ General Longstreet 
again recounted the difficulties, ending as before, ‘ Gen¬ 
eral, you know you have only to give the order and the 
attack will be made, but I must tell you that I think it a 
useless waste of brave lives.’ ” 22 Also that excellent critic 
Colonel T. L. Livermore proposes to solve the difficult 
question, why Lee did not earlier abandon Petersburg, 
by accepting Davis’s suggestion that the general’s too 
combative temperament made him reluctant to retire 
from an enemy. 23 

The most heroic picture that is left us of Lee, high- 
wrought by the excitement of battle and determined to 
fight to the end, is the account, received by Henderson 
from a reliable eye-witness, of the chief’s decision to re¬ 
main north of the Potomac after Antietam. General after 
general rode up to the commander’s headquarters, all 
with the same tale of discouragement and counsel of re¬ 
treat. Hood was quite unmanned. “ My God ! ” cried Lee 
to him, with unwonted vehemence, “ where is the splen¬ 
did division you had this morning?” “They are lying 
on the field where you sent them,” answered Hood. 
Even Jackson did not venture to suggest anything but 
withdrawal. There were a few moments of oppressive 
silence. Then Lee rose in his stirrups and said : “ Gen¬ 
tlemen, we will not cross the Potomac to-night. You will 


162 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


go to your respective commands, strengthen your lines; 
send two officers from each brigade towards the ford to 
collect your stragglers and bring them up. Many have 
come in. I have had the proper steps taken to collect all 
the men who are in the rear. If McClellan wants to fight 
in the morning, I will give him battle. Go!” 24 They 
went, and in this case at least Lee’s glorious audacity 
was justified; for he proved to all the world that Mc¬ 
Clellan did not dare attack him again. 

However Lee’s judgment may have been affected by 
the excitement of battle, it made little alteration in his 
bearing or manner. Fremantle tells us that the general’s 
dress was always neat and clean, and adds : “ I observed 
this during the three days’ fight at Gettysburg, when 
every one else looked and was extremely dirty.” 25 Stress 
of conflict sometimes seems to alter men’s natures. Odd 
stories are told in the war-books of officers quite saintly 
in common converse who in battle would swear like re¬ 
probates. Conversely, it is said of the great Conde that 
in his daily dealings with his soldiers his tongue was 
incredibly rough, but the moment he got under fire he 
addressed everybody about him with exquisite politeness. 
Lee’s politeness was always exquisite. It was only very, 
very rarely that some untoward incident stirred either 
his temper or his speech. “ Probably no man ever com¬ 
manded an army and, at the same time, so entirely 
commanded himself as Lee,” says the cool-blooded 
Alexander. “This morning [after Chancellorsville] was 


LEE IN BATTLE 163 

almost the only occasion on which I ever saw him out 
of humor.” 26 

Nor was it only a question of mere politeness. Lee 
was as tender and sympathetic to man and beast in the 
fury of combat, in the chaos of defeat, as he could have 
been in his own domain at Arlington. After the great 
charge on the third day at Gettysburg, an officer rode 
up to him lashing an unwilling horse. “ Don’t whip him, 
Captain, don’t whip him,” protested the general, “ I have 
just such another foolish beast myself and whipping 
doesn’t do any good.” 27 And as the tumult of disaster 
increased, the sympathy took larger forms of magna¬ 
nimity than mere prevention of cruelty to animals. There 
was no fault-finding, no shifting of perhaps deserved 
blame to others, nothing but calmness, comfort, cheer¬ 
fulness, and confidence. “ All this will come right in the 
end; we ’ll talk of it afterwards; but in the mean time 
all good men must rally.” 28 “ Never mind, General. All 
this has been my fault. It is I that have lost this fight, 
and you must help me out of it the best way you can.” 29 

So, with incomparable patience, tact, and energy, 
the great soldier held his army together after defeat 
and kept it in a temper and condition which went far 
to justify Meade’s reluctance to follow up his success. 
Only, to complete the picture, one should turn to General 
Imboden’s brief sketch, taken after the work was done 
and natural human exhaustion and despair claimed some 
little right over even a hero’s nerve and brain. It must 


164 LEE THE AMERICAN 

be remembered that this was a man fifty-six years old. 
Towards midnight Lee rode up to Imboden’s command. 
“When he approached and saw us, he spoke, reined up 
his horse and endeavored to dismount. The effort to do 
so betrayed so much physical exhaustion that I stepped 
forward to assist him, but before I reached him, he had 
alighted. He threw his arm across his saddle to rest 
himself and, fixing his eyes upon the ground, leaned in 
silence upon his equally weary horse: the two formed 
a striking group, as motionless as a statue. After some 
expressions as to Pickett’s charge, etc., he added in 
a tone almost of agony, ‘Too bad I Too bad 1 Oh, too 
bad! ’ ” 30 

With the portrait of Lee himself in the shock of battle 
we should put a background of his soldiers and their 
feeling as he came among them. We have already heard 
their passionate cry when he rushed to put himself at 
their head and charge into the thickest of the fight. “ Go 
back, General Lee! Go back!” General Gordon, who 
loved to throw a high-light of eloquence on all such 
scenes, describes this one with peculiar vividness, his 
own remonstrance, “These men are Georgians, Virgin¬ 
ians, and Carolinians. They have never failed you on 
any field. They will not fail you now. Will you, boys?” 
and the enthusiastic answer, “No, no, no!” 31 Those 
who like the quiet truth of history, even when it chills, 
will be interested in an eye-witness’s simple comment on 
this picturesque narrative. “Gordon says, ‘We need no 


LEE IN BATTLE 165 

such encouragement.’ At this some of our soldiers called 
out, ‘No, no I’ Gordon continuing, said, ‘There is not 
a soldier in the Confederate army who would not gladly 
lay down his life to save you from harm ’; but the men 
did not respond to this last proposition.” 32 

It cannot be doubted, however, that Lee’s personal 
influence in critical moments was immense. On one oc¬ 
casion just before battle there was heard to pass from 
mouth to mouth as a sort of watchword the simple 
comment, “ Remember, General Lee is looking at us.” 33 
Mr. Page describes a scene which is very effective as 
showing how little the general relied on words and how 
little he needed to. Lee was riding through the ranks 
before a conflict. He “ uttered no word. He simply re¬ 
moved his hat and passed bareheaded along the line. 
I had it from one who witnessed the act. ‘ It was,’ said 
he, ‘ the most eloquent address ever delivered.’ And a few 
minutes later, as the men advanced to the charge, he 
heard a youth, as he ran forward, crying and reloading 
his musket, shout through his tears that ‘ any man who 
would not fight after what General Lee said was a 
-coward.’ ” 34 

Perhaps the most splendid battle-piece of Lee in the 
midst of his fighting soldiers is Colonel Marshall’s ac¬ 
count of the triumphant advance on the third day at 
Chancellorsville. The enemy were retiring and the 
troops swept forward through the tumult of battle and 
the smoke of woods and dwellings burning about them. 



LEE THE AMERICAN 


166 

Everywhere the field was strewn with the wounded and 
dying of both armies. “In the midst of this scene Gen¬ 
eral Lee, mounted upon that horse which we all remem¬ 
ber so well, rode to the front of his advancing battalions. 
His presence was the signal for one of those uncontrol¬ 
lable outbursts of enthusiasm which none can appreciate 
who have not witnessed them. The fierce soldiers, with 
their faces blackened with the smoke of battle, the 
wounded, crawling with feeble limbs from the fury of the 
devouring flames, all seemed possessed with a common 
impulse. One long, unbroken cheer, in which the feeble 
cry of those who lay helpless on the earth blended with 
the strong voices of those who still fought, rose high 
above the roar of battle, and hailed the presence of the 
victorious chief. He sat in the full realization of all that 
soldiers dream of — triumph.” 35 

This was victory. But there came a day of defeat, 
when the Army of Northern Virginia, after four years 
of fighting and triumphing and suffering, shrunk almost 
to nothing, saw its great commander ride away to make 
his submission to a generous conqueror. Their love, their 
loyalty, their confidence were no less than they had ever 
been. If he said further fighting was useless and inhu¬ 
man, it must be so. 

But this very absolute confidence increased the weight 
of the terrible decision. All these thousands trusted him 
to decide for them. He must decide right. What the 
burden was we can only imagine, never know. But 


LEE IN BATTLE 167 

through the noble serenity maintained by habitual effort 
good observers detected signs of the struggle that was 
going on. “ His face was still calm, but his carriage was 
no longer erect, as his soldiers had been used to see it. 
The trouble of those last days had already ploughed great 
furrows in his forehead. His eyes were red as if with 
weeping ; his cheeks sunken and haggard; his face col¬ 
orless. No one who looked upon him then, as he stood 
there in full view of the disastrous end, can ever forget 
the intense agony written upon his features. And yet he 
was calm, self-possessed, and deliberate.” 36 So great was 
his anguish that it wrung a wish to end it all, even from 
a natural self-control complete as his. “ How easily I 
could get rid of this and be at rest. I have only to ride 
along the lines and all will be over. But,” he quickly 
added, “ it is our duty to live, for what will become of 
the women and children of the South if we are not here 
to support and protect them ? ” 37 

So the decision had to be made. And he made it. 
“ Then there is nothing left me but to go and see Gen¬ 
eral Grant, and I would rather die a thousand deaths.” 38 
His officers protested passionately. “ O General, what 
will history say of the surrender of the army in the 
field?” “Yes, I know, they will say hard things of us ; 
they will not understand how we were overwhelmed by 
numbers ; but that is not the question, Colonel; the ques¬ 
tion is, is it right to surrender this army ? If it is right, 
then I will take all the responsibility.” 39 


168 LEE THE AMERICAN 

The scene that ensued has been described often: the 
plain farmhouse room, the officers, curious, yet sympa¬ 
thetic, the formal conversation, as always painfully un¬ 
equal to the huge event it covered, the short, ungainly, 
ill-dressed man, as dignified in his awkwardness almost 
as the royal, perfectly appointed figure that conferred 
with him. Lee bore himself nobly, say his admirers, 
nobly, but a little coldly, say his opponents. And who 
shall blame him ? Then it was over. One moment he 
paused at the door, as he went out, waiting for his horse; 
and as he paused, looking far into the tragic future, or 
the tragic past, he struck his hands together in a gesture 
of immense despair, profoundly significant for so self- 
contained a man. 40 Then he rode away, back to his 
children, back to the Army of Northern Virginia, who 
had seen him daily for three years and now would never 
see him any more. 

In all this scene two figures stand out beyond every 
other, the man who succeeded and the man who failed. 
In some respects there are remarkable resemblances be¬ 
tween them. Though one had old family traditions 
behind him and the other had not, both were abso¬ 
lutely simple, democratic, and indifferent to fuss, par¬ 
ade, or show. Both were frank and straightforward, yet 
both were men of extreme reticence, using as few words as 
possible and only for the deliberate conveyance of their 
purposes. Both, under a calm if not frigid exterior, covered 
tender human sympathy and warm human kindness. 


LEE IN BATTLE 169 

But one was a man of the eighteenth century, the 
other of the nineteenth, one of the old America, the other 
of the new. Grant stands for our modern world, with its 
rough, business habits, its practical energy, its desire to 
do things no matter how, its indifference to the sweet 
grace of ceremony and dignity and courtesy. Lee had 
the traditions of an older day, not only its high beliefs, 
but its grave stateliness, its feeling that the way of doing 
things was almost as much as the thing done. In short, 
Grant’s America was the America of Lincoln, Lee’s the 
America of Washington. It is in part because of this dif¬ 
ference and because I would fain believe that without 
loss of the one we may some day regain something of 
the other that I have given so much thought to the por¬ 
trayal of Lee’s character and life. 

Long ago Milton said that he who would be a great 
poet must make his own life a true poem. Lee had cer¬ 
tainly no care for being a great poet, but if ever man 
made his own life a true poem, it was he. Grant’s career 
has the vigor, the abruptness, the patness, the roughness 
of a terse military dispatch. It fits its place and fills it, 
and all is said. Lee’s has the breadth, the dignity, the 
majesty, the round and full completeness of a Miltonic 
epic, none the less inspiring because it had a tragic end. 
It was indeed a life lived in the grand style. 


VIII 


LEE AS A GENERAL 

In the year 1901 I was invited to attend a meeting called 
to discuss the question, who was the greatest man of 
the nineteenth century. I accepted with pleasure. As all 
those present were citizens of the Northern portion of 
the United States they happily arrived at unanimous 
agreement upon Abraham Lincoln, just as they would 
have agreed upon Napoleon, if they had been French, 
or, if they had been Germans, upon Bismarck. 

What interested me most was that no one seemed dis¬ 
posed to inquire very carefully into the essential or com¬ 
parative elements of greatness. How was it about the 
great artists, painters, sculptors, and musicians? How 
about the poets, or the novelists, who, like Scott, had 
brought delight to millions ? How about the great dis¬ 
coverers in science ? Or the great philanthropists ? Was 
the greatest man he who had shown the highest devel¬ 
opment of human power and genius, as perhaps Napo¬ 
leon ? Or he who had pushed the standard of pure truth 
some steps further into outer darkness, as perhaps Dar¬ 
win? Or he who — and I know not even whom to in¬ 
stance without too much begging of the question — had 
been simply of the greatest use and service to humanity ? 
And I could not but be reminded of Edward FitzGerald’s 


LEE AS A GENERAL 


171 

caustic sentence: “ It is wonderful how Macaulay, Hal- 
lam, and Mackintosh could roar and bawl at one another 
over such questions as which is the Greatest Poet ? Which 
is the greatest work of that Greatest Poet ? etc., like Boys 
at some Debating Society.” 1 

FitzGerald, too, here narrows the discussion to a par¬ 
ticular field. And with a poem or a picture we can at 
least say, this I prefer, this the majority of men seem to 
prefer, though Heaven knows that even such decision is 
difficult enough. But in more complicated lines of hu¬ 
man activity the problem is far more puzzling, and in 
none more than in that of soldiership. When I see the 
readiness with which persons whom I should not sup¬ 
pose especially competent grade, classify, and adjust, 
setting A above B, B above C, D above B and C but 
below A, with the nicest accuracy of discrimination, I can 
only wonder and be forcibly reminded of FitzGerald’s 
little quip. 

There are so many things to be taken into account. 
Lord Roberts quotes Napoleon’s remark that “the first 
quality of a general is that he shall have a cool head,” 
and, as Wellington had a supremely cool head, infers 
that he was equal, if not superior to Napoleon. But surely 
a general may use a few other qualities besides coolness. 
Ropes admirably suggests the difficulties in the discus¬ 
sion in his comparison of Joseph E. Johnston with Lee. 
“ Johnston,” he says, “ possessed as good a military mind 
as any general on either side; but in that fortunate com- 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


172 

bination of qualities—physical, mental, and moral — 
which go to make up a great commander, General Lee 
was unquestionably more favored than any of the leaders 
in the Civil War.” 2 Yet even here— “ physical, mental, 
and moral”—how much room there is for question and 
distinction. 

After which, it must be admitted that humanity will go 
on forever grading and ranking, like the great school¬ 
boys that we all are. And the instinct that impels us to 
do so is a right instinct. We can never settle which is 
the greatest man, or what is true greatness. Yet we must 
be always trying to settle it. Only so can we choose our 
models and examples. Only so can we establish the 
standard by which, however shifting, and uncertain, and 
imperfect, we must guide our lives. 

A series of studies of Lee which did not include “ Lee 
as a General ” would be absurd. Yet it cannot be expected 
that a civilian should attempt any scientific analysis of 
military genius. Some civilians have attempted it, which 
does not encourage me in the least. Even professional 
men would do well to remember Lee’s own reply, when 
he was asked to review a book on the Austro-Prussian 
war in 1866: “At the time of the occurrence I thought I 
saw the mistakes committed by the Austrians ; but 1 did 
not know the facts, and you are aware that, though it is 
easy to write on such subjects, it is difficult to elucidate 
the truth.” 3 If we were all as modest as this, I fear noth¬ 
ing would be written about anything. Fortunately we 


LEE AS A GENERAL 


173 

are not. And on the topic of Lee’s soldiership volumes 
have been filled. I shall endeavor as briefly as possible 
to illustrate the different points of view and then to state 
some conclusions, not as to comparative rank but as 
to particular qualities. But first we should have a rapid 
summary of the unquestioned facts of Lee’s military 
career during the war. 

When Virginia seceded, he was made commander-in¬ 
chief of all her forces. When she joined the Confeder¬ 
acy, he was appointed to organize the Southern troops 
as they arrived in Richmond. In the autumn of 1861 he 
conducted an inconspicuous and unsuccessful campaign 
in West Virginia. Towards the end of the same year he 
was sent to take charge of the seacoast defenses of South 
Carolina and Georgia. Early in 1862 he was called to 
Richmond and made military adviser to the president. 
On the first of June, in consequence of the wounding of 
Johnston, Lee took command of the Army of Northern 
Virginia. He then fought the series of Peninsular battles, 
which resulted in the retreat of McClellan and the relief 
of Richmond. In the autumn he and Jackson defeated 
Pope in the second battle of Bull Run, invaded the North, 
captured Harper’s Ferry, but were checked by McClel¬ 
lan at Antietam, and forced to withdraw again into 
Virginia. In December they defeated Burnside at Fred¬ 
ericksburg, and in May, Hooker at Chancellorsville, the 
latter victory being dearly bought by Jackson’s death. 
Lee then invaded Pennsylvania, but was severely repulsed 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


174 

by Meade at Gettysburg, and once more recrossed the 
Potomac. In the autumn and winter of 1863 and 1864 
the two armies confronted each other at different points 
in Virginia without any very decisive contact. In the 
spring Grant took control of all the Northern forces and, 
with Meade under him in immediate command of the 
Army of the Potomac, made his plans to destroy Lee’s 
army and push straight for Richmond. Lee met him at 
point after point, however; and Grant finally took his 
army across the James to Petersburg. Here he was at 
first no more successful than in the Wilderness. But a 
winter of privation and starvation, together with the fail¬ 
ure of Southern resources consequent upon Sherman’s 
and other movements in the South and West, greatly 
reduced Lee’s strength and efficiency; and when Grant 
and Sheridan closed in upon him in March and April, 
they very speedily brought about the final surrender at 
Appomattox. 

Starting with this indisputable statements of events, 
let us examine the various estimates of Lee’s generalship. 
Let us take first the eulogies of his Southern admirers, 
premising, however, that not by any means all Southern 
writing is unreasonable or extravagant. The sane and 
discriminating spirit of Allan or Alexander, for example, 
is but little removed from the moderate tone of equally 
cool heads on the Northern side. But the usual strain of 
Confederate rhapsody is quite different. Listen to B. H. 
Hill’s comparison of the Southern leader with other great 


LEE AS A GENERAL 


175 

commanders : “ He was a Caesar without his ambition; 
a Frederick without his tyranny; a Napoleon without his 
selfishness; and a Washington without his reward.” 4 
Or to General Gordon’s masterly rhetoric, which is more 
specifically military: “ Compare this, my friends, the con¬ 
dition of France, with the condition of the United States, 
in the freshness of her strength, in the luxuriance of her 
resources, in the lustihood of her gigantic youth, and 
tell me where belongs the chaplet of military superiority, 
with Lee, or with Marlborough or Wellington ? Even the 
greatest of captains, in his Italian campaigns, flashing 
his fame, in lightning splendor, over the world, even 
Bonaparte met and crushed in battle but three or four 
(I think) Austrian armies ; while our Lee, with one army, 
badly equipped, and in time incredibly short, met and 
hurled back, in broken and shattered fragments, five 
admirably prepared and most magnificently appointed 
invasions. . . . Lee was never really beaten. Lee could 
not be beaten! Overpowered, foiled in his efforts, he might 
be, but never defeated until the props which supported 
him gave away. . . . On that most melancholy of pages, 
the downfall of the Confederacy, no Leipsic, no Water¬ 
loo, no Sedan can ever be recorded.” 5 One is reminded 
of Matthew Arnold’s remark about Macaulay’s essay on 
Milton : “ Truly, with what a heavy brush does this man 
lay on his colors.” Reverend J. William Jones, however, 
manages to produce as great an effect with much simpler 
means. “ I think I put it very conservatively when I say 


176 LEE THE AMERICAN 

that he had proven himself the greatest soldier of the war, 
if not of history.” 6 What would the reverend gentleman 
have said, if he had not wished to be conservative ? 

Now let us turn to those who are as evidently prejud¬ 
iced against Lee as these eulogists in his favor. The 
fault-finders are not all Northerners. In the early days, 
before the general’s reputation was established, there 
was plenty of criticism in the South. Thus Pollard, who 
afterwards became an enthusiastic admirer, could say in 
regard to the West Virginia campaign, “a general who 
had never fought a battle, who had a pious horror of 
guerrillas, and whose extreme tenderness of blood in¬ 
clined him to depend exclusively upon the resources of 
strategy” ; 7 and even after the Peninsula, “ Lee, who by 
no fault of his own was followed by toadies, flatterers, 
and newspaper sneaks in epaulets who made him ridic¬ 
ulous by their servile obeisances and excess of praise.” 8 
Longstreet, who loved Lee personally, was goaded by 
the attacks of Lee’s admirers on his own record into 
a frankness of comment which sounds far different from 
the ecstasies quoted above. “ On the defensive Lee was 
absolutely perfect . . . but of the art of war, more partic¬ 
ularly of that of giving battle, I do not think General 
Lee was a master. In science and military learning he was 
greatly the superior of General Grant, or any other com¬ 
mander on either side. But in the art of war I have no doubt 
that Grant and several others were his equals. In the field 
his characteristic fault was headlong combativeness.” 9 


LEE AS A GENERAL 


177 

Longstreet’s strictures, as indeed those of most critics, 
are chiefly connected with Gettysburg, in Longstreet’s 
case not unnaturally, since the responsibility for the fail¬ 
ure of that battle has usually been made to rest either 
with Longstreet or with Lee. Longstreet had his own 
ideas beforehand of what should be done. He tried to 
persuade Lee to accept them. Lee declined, and told 
Longstreet what he himself wished. Longstreet either 
would not or could not carry out the general’s wishes, 
and the battle was lost. The following are a few of 
Longstreet’s remarks. “The cause of the battle was sim¬ 
ply General Lee’s determination to fight it out from the 
position in which he was at that time.” 10 “He seemed 
under a subdued excitement, which took possession of 
him when ‘ the hunt was up ’ and threatened his superb 
poise.” 11 “ There is no doubt that General Lee during 
the crisis of that campaign lost the matchless equipoise 
that usually characterized him.” 12 And the lieutenant 
supports himself by a quotation which it takes all the 
authority of his character as a soldier and a gentleman 
to make us accept. He says that when he was in Ten¬ 
nessee Lee wrote him, “ If I only had taken your counsel 
even on the 3d, and had moved around the Federal left, 
how different all might have been.” 13 Lee’s own quiet 
comment elsewhere on the battle does not sound to 
me entirely consistent with this: “ It would have been 
gained, could one determined and united blow have 
been delivered by our whole line.” 14 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


178 

If we wish to get the extreme Northern partisan view 
of Lee’s generalship, we must come down a little later 
than Gettysburg, to the Wilderness, and listen to Badeau. 
Badeau had, of course, but one object, to exalt Grant; 
and it is extremely curious to see how his disposition 
to do this directly by depreciating Lee is constantly 
checked by his realization that since Grant finally won, 
the more able Lee can be shown to have been, the 
greater is the glory of having beaten him. Some re¬ 
serves are, therefore, made in favor of Lee’s defensive 
generalship. But for the most part, he is unequal to his 
opportunities and much overrated. In the first place, he 
is morally not all he should be: “ The fact is that Lee 
was often disingenuous in his reports. He did not abso¬ 
lutely falsify, but he colored and concealed so as to con¬ 
vey a very incorrect impression.” 15 Militarily, his genius 
served for little more than to be a foil to Grant’s. “ The 
genius of the leader as well as the valor of his men was 
reserved for negative displays.” 16 His was the “ natural 
policy of a second-rate commander.” 17 “ Grant himself, 
in Lee’s situation, would never have been content with 
a negative defense.” 18 “ And whether his spirit was 
cowed and acknowledged its master, or whether Grant’s 
skill was so absolute as to allow no opportunity, the 
rebel general never again [after the Wilderness] as¬ 
sumed a completely offensive attitude.” 19 

This sort of thing would appear quite as hyperbolical 
as the Southern praise, were it not that so great an 


LEE AS A GENERAL 


179 

authority as Grant himself uses very much the same 
expressions. During his trip around the world he said 
to Young: “ I never ranked Lee so high as some others 
in the army, that is to say, I never had so much anxiety 
when he was in my front as when Joe Johnston was in 
front. [Yet Grant said to Meade in the Wilderness, 
“Joe Johnston would have retired after two days’ such 
punishment.” 20 ] Lee was a good man, a fair commander, 
who had everything in his favor. He was a man who 
needed sunshine. . . . Lee was of a slow, cautious nature, 
without imagination or humor, always the same, with 
grave dignity. I never could see in his achievements 
what justified his reputation. The illusion that heavy 
odds beat him will not stand the ultimate light of his¬ 
tory. I know it is not true. Lee was a good deal of a 
headquarters general, from what I can hear and from 
what his officers say. He was almost too old for active 
service — the best service in the field.” 21 Grant’s writ¬ 
ten words in his “ Memoirs,” though more guarded, are 
to the same effect. I am not aware that he ever said any¬ 
thing in commendation of Lee’s military ability. Lee is 
reported — to be sure, on rather circuitous authority — to 
have remarked after the war: “ I have carefully searched 
the military records of both ancient and modern history, 
and have never found Grant’s superior as a general.” 22 
With the flight of years and the cooling of passion, 
Northern judgment has come to take an attitude very 
different from Badeau’s. 23 To begin with, Lee’s immense 


i8o 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


difficulties are better appreciated. Grant says he needed 
sunshine and support. It may be so, but he did not 
always get them. Often he was obliged to relinquish his 
own plans for those of others, and even in carrying out 
his own he was so hampered by superior authority that 
the results could not properly be said to be his. And the 
limitation of authority was less serious than the limita¬ 
tion of resources. Grant had men, money, means of all 
sorts at his back. Lee’s numbers shrank daily and could 
not be replaced, and the men he had could not be armed 
or shod or clothed or fed. The pitifulness of his disabili¬ 
ties in this respect can only be appreciated by wide read¬ 
ing of his correspondence and that of others. He was 
not a man to complain, yet passage after passage like 
the following occurs: “ I can do nothing for want of 
proper supplies. With these and effective horses I think 
I could disturb the quiet of the enemy and drive him to 
the Potomac.” 24 When he was asked, after the war, why 
he did not advance upoh Washington after the Second 
Bull Run, he answered, “ Because my men had nothing 
to eat. I could not tell my men to take that fort [point¬ 
ing to Fort Wade] when they had had nothing to eat 
for three days. I went to Maryland to feed my army.” 25 
Palfrey’s comment on this sort of thing, though not well 
taken in the South, has a good deal of force in it. He 
says, in substance, that one reason the Army of North¬ 
ern Virginia fought so splendidly was that victory meant 
a square meal at last. 


LEE AS A GENERAL 181 

The Northern critics who are most favorable to Lee 
of course all admit that he made mistakes. He himself 
would have been the first to recognize this, as in his 
well-known humorous comment on the newspaper edit¬ 
ors : “ Even as poor a soldier as I am can generally dis¬ 
cover mistakes after it is all over. But if I could only 
induce these wise gentlemen who see them so clearly 
beforehand to communicate with me in advance, it would 
be far better for my reputation and — what is of more 
consequence — far better for the cause.” 26 

In regard to Gettysburg, Northern writers generally 
feel that Lee was wrong. He did not mean to fight there 
and never should have fought there, as he did. They 
hold that he violated Jomini’s fundamental principle: 
“These two bloody days [of Eylau] prove how dubious 
must be the success of an attack which is directed at the 
front and centre of a well-concentrated enemy: even if 
victory is won, it is too dearly bought to be of any 
use.” 27 “ He [Lee] could easily have manoeuvred Meade 
out of his strong position on the heights and should have 
done so,” says Doubleday, 28 though he remarks a little 
later that “the great effort of Wilcox and Wright would 
have been ruinous, if followed up,” 29 which surely shows 
that the second day might have proved successful for 
the South. Ropes and Colonel W. R. Livermore go fur¬ 
ther, holding that Gettysburg was merely the culmina¬ 
tion of a series of unjustifiable audacities. Ropes main¬ 
tained that the risk of the Second Bull Run campaign 


182 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


was greater than was justified by the chance of advan* 
tage. “The rules of war allow of no such dangerous 
movement as Jackson’s, unless the object is far more 
important than the one which on this occasion he pro¬ 
posed to himself.” 30 Elsewhere he says that Lee “ showed 
on several occasions a singular lack of caution.” 31 And 
although he contrasts Jackson’s flank attack at Chancel- 
lorsville with others as a case where the risk was worth 
running for the great results to be obtained, he agrees in 
the main with Colonel Livermore that Gettysburg may be 
regarded as the last act of a drama that began long be¬ 
fore. 32 “It is certainly a mistake,” writes Ropes, “for a 
general to overestimate his adversary’s strength and 
prowess; it is no less a mistake, however, to underrate 
them. But this was, as we know, the habit of General 
Lee’s mind; and his subsequent successes confirmed 
him in it. It was not until the disastrous assault on the 
heights of Gettysburg that he found out his mistake.” 33 

Nor do the Northern critics confine their strictures to 
Gettysburg and its immediate antecedents. They insist 
that in the earlier Peninsula campaign, important as the 
results were, they might have been much greater, and that 
Malvern Hill was almost as ill-managed as Gettysburg. 
And they recognize that the failure to anticipate Grant’s 
crossing of the James, was a very serious and unfortun¬ 
ate oversight. 

Yet, in spite of all this, it would be difficult for intel¬ 
ligent enthusiasm to be warmer or more generous than 


LEE AS A GENERAL 183 

that of many of these Northern writers for their ancient 
adversary. Some of them by no means agree in con¬ 
demning even Gettysburg. General Hunt thought that 
“ a battle was necessary to Lee and a defeat would be 
more disastrous to Meade, and less so to himself, at 
Gettysburg than at any other point east of it.” 34 Ropes 
cannot refuse his admiration to the very rashness which 
he blames. “One hardly knows which is the more re¬ 
markable — General Lee’s sagacity in estimating the 
inertia of his antagonist [before Fredericksburg], or his 
temerity in confronting him so long with a force only one 
third as strong, and actually for a time refusing the aid 
which Jackson was bringing to him.” 35 As to the con¬ 
duct of the Wilderness campaign there is a general con¬ 
cord of commendation. Instead of agreeing with Badeau 
that Lee was cowed out of all initiative, Colonel Dodge 
says: “ Grant’s method was just what Lee preferred. He 
was right in not coming out of his intrenchments to 
fight.” 36 “Grant had been thoroughly defeated in his 
attempt to walk past General Lee on his way to Rich¬ 
mond,” writes General Webb. 37 And Colonel W. R. 
Livermore, the latest authority on the subject, declares 
(in answer to a frequent comment on the Wilderness 
battles) that “it was due to Lee’s skill that he fought be¬ 
hind breastworks,” 38 that “ if Grant in the spring of 1864 
had come to the Army of Northern Virginia and Lee to 
the Army of the Potomac, it is not impossible that the war 
would have ended then and there,” 39 and that “this cam- 


184 LEE THE AMERICAN 

paign alone would entitle him to the high place he justly 
holds among the great commanders of the world.” 40 

Nor is Northern eulogy of Lee confined to the conduct 
of special campaigns. Mr. Bache, in his “ Life of Meade,” 
writes, “ He had not, like most successful generals, as 
Tacitus says, become insolent with success, but had never 
failed in gentle courtesy to his officers, in boundless 
tenderness to his men, in humanity to all, and in word 
and deed had proved himself the rarest type of soldier 
and gentleman.” 41 Colonel W. R. Livermore calls him 
“ the greatest general of the day.” 42 Ropes says that the 
feeling in the army towards the commander was “one 
of entire confidence and enthusiastic devotion. This was 
not because it was a Southern army, but because the 
Army of Northern Virginia was so fortunate as to have 
in Lee a man who was head and shoulders above his 
colleagues.” 43 And Colonel Roosevelt has added his 
testimony to all the rest: “As a mere military man 
Washington himself cannot rank with the wonderful 
war-chief who for four years led the Army of Northern 
Virginia.” 44 And again: Lee “ will undoubtedly rank as 
without any exception the greatest of all the great cap¬ 
tains that the English-speaking people have brought 
forth—and this, although the last and chief of his an¬ 
tagonists may claim to stand as the full equal of Marl¬ 
borough and Wellington.” 45 

Now let us turn to the opinion of foreign military ex- 
perts and critics, which should be more impartial than 


LEE AS A GENERAL 185 

that of any American. As a matter of fact, in the early 
days the foreigners who wrote about the war were cer¬ 
tainly not impartial. The Comte de Paris, excellent as 
his history is, was distinctly Northern in his sympathies. 
Fremantle and Scheibert were even more distinctly 
Southern. And when Lord Wolseley said of Lee, “ He 
was the ablest general, and to me seemed the greatest 
man I had ever conversed with; and yet I have had the 
privilege of meeting Von Moltke and Prince Bismarck. 
. . . General Lee was one of the few men who ever seri¬ 
ously impressed and awed me with their natural and 
their inherent greatness,” 46 he was probably somewhat 
influenced by personal sympathy with the Southern 
leader and the cause he served. 

Within the last ten or fifteen years, however, there has 
come up a generation of English critics whose interest 
in our Civil War seems to be almost purely impersonal 
and scientific. They are perfectly ready to find ability 
and military genius on the Northern side as well as on 
the Southern. Indeed, I think they are generally inclined 
to estimate Grant’s soldiership more highly than is usual 
with many of the more rigorous Northern writers. The 
judgments of these Englishmen in regard to Lee have, 
therefore, a peculiar interest and suggestiveness. 

Here again, there is of course no attempt to overlook 
or belittle Lee’s errors. Henderson is inclined, in many 
cases, to criticize Lee’s use of his cavalry, especially dur¬ 
ing the early part of the war. As to the sequel, or lack 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


186 

of sequel, to Malvern Hill, Captain Battine remarks, “It 
can now be said that Lee missed a grand opportunity; ” 47 
and the same writer says of the movements against 
Meade in the autumn of 1863, “It cannot be denied that 
Lee, great strategist as he was, on this occasion, as on 
the march to Gettysburg, clung too long to his precon¬ 
ceived scheme of how the campaign should develop, nor 
did he watch as narrowly as he should have done for the 
first good chance to strike.” 48 As to the great crux of 
Gettysburg I think the English critics are a little more 
lenient than the American, and Battine even declares 
that the decision to attack was “ sound and wise, the 
failure lay in faults of execution which were caused, to 
some extent, at any rate, by the want of sympathetic 
cooperation of the corps commanders,” 49 while Wood 
and Edmunds hold that Jackson in Longstreet’s place 
would have “annihilated the greater part of Meade’s 
army and forced the remainder to retreat on Washing¬ 
ton.” 50 Beside this it is well to place Henderson’s quiet 
comment, substantially in accord with Ropes and Colonel 
Livermore : “ I am forced to the conclusion that at Get¬ 
tysburg Lee’s whole army suffered from overconfid¬ 
ence.” 51 Henderson is also decidedly critical as to Lee’s 
failure to keep track of Grant’s crossing of the James. 
“ Grant certainly outmanoeuvred Lee. It was only the 
slackness of one of his subordinates that saved the Con¬ 
federate army not indeed from defeat, but from being 
driven back into Richmond itself.” 52 


LEE AS A GENERAL 187 

On the other hand, these critics unite in the warmest 
admiration for Lee’s greatness and genius. This appears 
in the remarks on individual operations. Henderson 
says, speaking of the Second Bull Run, “ If, as Von 
Moltke avers, the junction of two armies in the field of 
battle is the highest achievement of military genius, the 
campaign against Pope has seldom been surpassed. 
. . . Tried by this test alone, Lee stands out as one of 
the greatest soldiers of all times.” 63 In regard to the Wil- 
derness campaign Captain Vaughan-Sawyer writes: “ In 
this [Lee’s not taking the offensive] only a few of his 
detractors have seen evidence of failing courage. Act¬ 
ually, it is only another exhibition of his genius, which 
enabled him to see that the day for those tactics was 
passed. His unerring perception told him that his only 
chance lay in wearing out his enemy and he would not 
be tempted into a false move.” 54 And Captain Battine’s 
verdict is even more favorable: “Lee had emerged tri¬ 
umphant from a campaign which is surpassed by no 
other in gallant fighting and skillful direction. Even the 
glories of the campaign of France in 1814, and Fred¬ 
erick’s wonderful defiance of his enemies in the Seven 

* 

Years’ War, pale before Lee’s astonishing performance; 
for neither Napoleon till he met Wellington, nor Frederick 
at any time, was opposed to such a dangerous enemy as 
Grant.” 55 

The general summaries as to Lee’s ability are in the 
same enthusiastic tone. Henderson, like Colonel Roose- 


l88 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


velt, improved on Von Moltke’s reported dictum that the 
Southern commander was in all respects the equal of 
Wellington by calling him “undoubtedly one of the 
greatest if not the greatest soldier who ever spoke the 
English tongue.” 56 And Captain Battine, concluding his 
estimate of the general’s character, says: “ In the tact 
and diplomatic skill with which he softened the jealous¬ 
ies of his people and tightened the combination of the 
different states he is only to be compared with the great 
Duke of Marlborough. In the boldness and sagacity of 
his strategy and in the affectionate devotion he inspired 
in his troops he resembled Napoleon himself. He en¬ 
joyed alike the confidence of the nation, government, 
and army, which he never lost for an instant in the dark¬ 
est days of misfortune. . . . Such as he was, brave, chiv¬ 
alrous, and conscientious to a fault, he will remain the 
most attractive personality among American heroes and 
one of the most famous of the world’s great generals.” 57 
For the eulogy of Lee which is at once the most en¬ 
thusiastic and the most discriminating we must, however, 
return to the United States. Colonel Eben Swift, in his 
paper read before the American Historical Society in 
1910, reviews the Wilderness battles in the light of the 
military equipment and conditions of to-day, and in¬ 
cidentally discusses Lee’s handling of the material and 
resources that he had. Colonel Swift is a member of the 
United States General Staff, and his opinion should, 
therefore, represent the latest and most scientific military 


LEE AS A GENERAL 189 

judgment. He writes as follows: “All great soldiers 
before him inherited a ready-made army, but Lee made 
his own army. None of the others probably encountered 
as dangerous an adversary as Grant, and none of them 
except Hannibal, and Napoleon in the last two years, 
were opposed to soldiers as good as their own. The odds 
of numbers were greater against Lee in the Wilderness 
campaign than they were against Napoleon in the 
Waterloo campaign. But Lee had his army at the end 
and Napoleon’s disaster was complete. In the Wilderness 
campaign Lee inflicted losses in killed and wounded 
almost as great as the army he commanded. Lee made 
five campaigns in a single year; no other man and no 
other army ever did so much. . . . Lee practiced his 
own theory of the art of war. Although indebted to 
Napoleon, he treated each problem as a concrete case, 
which he solved according to circumstances, and he had 
his greatest success when he departed furthest from es¬ 
tablished rules. Napoleon formulated the principle at 
St. Helena that you must never uncover your line of 
retreat or fight a battle with a front to a flank. Lee’s 
violation of that rule placed Grant’s plans in the Wilder¬ 
ness in greater danger than they ever were at any period 
of the campaign. But Lee’s art seems to have died with 
him. Up to the present he has taught no pupil and he 
has inspired no successor.” 58 

After feasting on this luxury of comparative estimates 
of Lee’s military greatness, the reader certainly has no 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


190 

desire to hear mine. It will now, however, be profitable 
to dwell for a moment on some special elements of his 
character which are particularly significant in connection 
with his soldiership. 

In the first place, there is his organizing, systematizing 
ability. As Colonel Swift says, “All great soldiers before 
him inherited a ready-made army, but he made his own 
army.” So far as the civil authorities would allow, he 
built it up from its component elements and made it one 
of the finest fighting machines in the world. As a little 
minor instance of his thoughtfulness, it is interesting to 
note that he is credited with having suggested the gray 
uniform on account of its protective quality. 69 But in a 
thousand details, large and small, he was always caring 
for the effectiveness of his soldiers and for their comfort. 
This talent for organization is apt to go, as it did in 
McClellan’s case, with too great deliberation, a constitu¬ 
tional reluctance to give up plans and depart from pro¬ 
grammes. What is remarkable about Lee is that he in¬ 
stantly responded to the demands of the occasion and 
strode right out of all rules and right over them. 

Then there is his boldness — or rashness. Some of his 
detractors assert that he failed in offense. Others that 
he was too aggressive. These charges contradict each 
other, say his friends. They do not. Nothing requires a 
cool head and perfect calm, so much as a vigorous and 
daring system of attack. And if Lee’s offensive really 
failed, it was because a too great combativeness hurled 


LEE AS A GENERAL 


191 

him for the moment off his balance. As Sainte-Beuve 
says of Napoleon, there were times when he broke loose 
from the world of men into the world of Titans. When 
Lee first took command of the army, General Alexander 
asked General Ives whether he had audacity enough. 
“ Alexander,” said Ives, “ if there is one man in either 
army, Confederate or Federal, head and shoulders above 
every other in audacity, it is General Lee. His name 
might be Audacity. He will take more desperate chances 
and take them quicker than any other man in this coun¬ 
try, North or South.” 60 At the same time, it should 
be remembered that Jackson felt obliged to defend Lee 
against the charge of excessive caution and to point out 
that he had the responsibility of a great army on his 
hands and felt it. 

In regard to this matter of taking chances, Lee should 
be heard in his own defense. He recognized perfectly 
again and again that he ran enormous risks ; but he felt 
that in his situation it was absolutely necessary. “ If you 
can accomplish the object, any risk would be justifi¬ 
able,” 61 he writes to D. H. Hill, early in the war. Again, 
“ There is always hazard in military movements, but we 
must decide between the possible loss of inaction and 
the risk of action.” 62 And after all was over, his cool 
observation on the matter was that criticism of his rash¬ 
ness was obvious, but that the disparity between the 
forces rendered such risks unavoidable. 63 It may at least 
be observed that when a man thrice in succession takes 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


192 

the apparently fearful chances of the Second Bull Run, 
of Antietam, of Chancellorsville, and comes out whole, 
if not triumphant, there may be something more in it 
than the mere luck of the successful gambler. 

Another quality of Lee’s, and one that will hardly be 
disputed, is energy and rapidity of action. Napoleon 
said, “ In the art of war, as in mechanics, time is the 
great element that balances the force and the resist¬ 
ance.” 64 The promptness with which Lee drew Jackson 
to himself before the Peninsular battles and before Fred¬ 
ericksburg, the vigor and swiftness of the retreat from 
Gettysburg, above all, the instant preparedness which 
met Grant at point after point as he circled about Rich¬ 
mond, would surely have won the approval of Napoleon 
himself. 

As to energy, and especially as to independence, of 
decision there is more dispute. It is sometimes asserted 
that Lee deferred too much to the judgment of his of¬ 
ficers. I feel that there may be some misapprehension 
here. Lee, when he chose, could be as secret as Jackson. 
He liked to consult his subordinates because they liked 
it. He was genuinely interested in their opinions. I 
doubt if he ever felt the need of any one’s support for 
his own judgment or, at any rate, the desire to divide 
his responsibility. As to the great latitude he gave his 
division commanders in the field, Henderson believes 
that he was simply anticipating the latest developments 
of modern war, which prescribe “ first, that an army 


LEE AS A GENERAL 


193 

cannot be effectively controlled from headquarters ; sec¬ 
ond, that the man on the spot is the best judge of the 
situation; third, that intelligent cooperation is of more 
value than mechanical obedience.” 65 It can hardly be 
denied, however, that Lee was too considerate, not of 
the opinions but of the feelings of his subordinates. As 
his nephew said of him, “ He had a reluctance to oppose 
the wishes of others or to order anything that would be 
disagreeable or to which they would not consent.” 66 
Among the foremost of Lee’s military qualities we 
must put his knowledge of human nature. I have al¬ 
ready dwelt upon the importance of this in his dealings 
with his own army. It was quite as useful to him in his 
dealings with the enemy. Possibly his divination of 
actual plans and movements may have been somewhat 
exaggerated. Sir Edward Hamley gives us an excellent 
caution in this regard. “ Historians,” he says, “ are fond 
of ascribing to successful generals such endowments as 
4 prescience,’ 4 intuitive divination of their enemy’s de¬ 
signs.’ There will be evidence in subsequent pages that 
these gifts, in the preternatural extent implied, exist only 
in the imagination of the chroniclers, and in this cam¬ 
paign [Jena] Napoleon had in three days made three 
erroneous calculations of the Prussian doings.” 67 

But although Lee may not always have foreseen the 
actual plan, he had the keenest appreciation of the man 
who made it and the way in which he was likely to carry 
it out. Certainly no one could say of him what Lord 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


194 

Wolseley, rather surprisingly, says of Napoleon: “Al¬ 
though I believe Napoleon to have been by far the 
greatest of all great men, he has always struck me as 
having been a bad judge of character .” 68 Lee’s com¬ 
ments on McClellan, on Pope, on Hooker, on Meade, on 
Grant, still more his conduct when confronted with each 
of them, show how watchful and how careful his judg¬ 
ment was with regard to them all. And, as always with 
him, this results not merely from intuition, but from pro¬ 
found study. Polybius said, two thousand years ago, 
“ It is to be ignorant or blind in the science of command¬ 
ing armies to think that a general has anything more 
important than to apply himself to learn the inclinations 
and character of his adversary.” Lee so understood his 
business. He made use of every bit of information that 
could possibly be acquired. He read the Northern papers 
systematically. And, on learning that McClellan was su¬ 
perseded, he is said to have expressed with much humor 
the difficulty of his task : “ I am sorry to part with 
McClellan. We understood one another so well.” While 
he remarked to a Northern general after the war: “You 
people changed your commanders in front of me so 
frequently that it was no small labor to study them 
and it was a work constantly to be renewed.” 69 

In short, what impresses me perhaps more than any¬ 
thing else in Lee’s purely military success is the splendid 
triumph of intelligence, of brains, and I do not find any 
really more satisfying eulogy than Henderson’s simple 


LEE AS A GENERAL 


195 

phrase, “ He was the clearest-sighted soldier in Amer¬ 
ica.” 70 

It is hardly necessary to say, however, that ‘t is not 
Lee’s excellence as a general that has led me to these 
extensive studies of his life. Modest as he was, if it had 
not been for the necessities of war, he might have left 
no mark on the history of his country. But the mark he 
has left is far deeper and more permanent than a merely 
military one. Perhaps he is as often compared with Well¬ 
ington as with any other great leader. Wellington loved 
his country and saved England. Yet Lord Roberts says 
of him, “ That he was honest, straightforward, resolute, 
and patriotic, none can deny; but there appears to be 
no instance in his military career of his adopting a course 
where his duty was opposed to his own interest.” 71 How 
different is the record of Lee! Emerson says of Napo¬ 
leon : “ His soldiers called him Cent Mille . Add honesty 
to him and they might have called him hundred million.” 
To military qualities not unlike Napoleon’s how much 
did Lee add besides honesty 1 


IX 


LEE’S SOCIAL AND DOMESTIC LIFE 

THERE is a curious conflict of testimony about Lee’s 
manner in general society. Was he cold and distant? 
Was he genial, merry, cordial, and ready to meet others 
in an open, confiding spirit? Pendleton, writing of old 
West Point days, tries, with the ingenuity of a biographer, 
to reconcile the two points of view: “ There was always 
about him a dignity which repelled improper familiarity, 
and yet a genial courtesy and joyous humor, often pass¬ 
ing into and creating delightful merriment, that rendered 
him a charming companion. . . . The possessor of these 
excellences could not but be a universal favorite. No 
other feeling toward him was ever experienced, I be¬ 
lieve, by any one of his several hundred fellow students 
from all parts of the United States.” 1 On the other hand, 
Charles Anderson, who knew him before the war, speaks 
of his “ grave, cold dignity of bearing and the prudent 
reserve of his manners which rather chilled over-early or 
over-much intercourse,” 2 and Grant, from acquaintance 
in Mexico, says that he was “ a large, austere man and, 
I judge, difficult of approach to his subordinates.” 3 
All this evidence — in fact all the evidence — comes 
from decided friends or enemies, speaking in view of 
Lee’s later glory. I have sought in vain for an illuminat- 



MRS. ROBERT E. LEE 










LEE’S SOCIAL AND DOMESTIC LIFE 197 

in g word written in the thirties. The wonderful charm 
which so impressed Pendleton and others, as they looked 
back, does not seem to have forced contemporaries to 
report it. In the war period Mrs. Chesnut, an admirer, 
but a shrewd, keen woman, gives us a glimpse which is 
well worth noting: “All the same, I like Smith Lee 
better, and I like his looks too. I know Smith Lee well. 
Can anybody say they know his brother? I doubt it. 
He looks so cold, quiet, and grand.” 4 Long, in disput¬ 
ing Grant’s opinion of his great adversary, says that he 
was not austere, but that “ he was clothed with a natural 
dignity which could either repel or invite, as occasion 
might require,” 5 and that he had “that just degree of 
reserve that suited his high and responsible position.” 6 
Here we have an interesting clue. I imagine that Lee 
had the reserve before he had the responsible position, 
that in the early days he held a little aloof, not in the 
least from haughtiness, but rather from the unwillingness 
of a deep, strong nature to yield itself too readily. As 
grandeur came upon him, he did not change his man¬ 
ner in the least, but what had before seemed coldness, 
seemed now dignity, and the austerity of the lieutenant 
appeared only a proper self-respect in the commanding 
general. 

In other words, he was not, in the expressive slang of 
to-day, “ a good mixer.” He did not smoke, he did not 
drink, and his attitude toward smoking and drinking 
shows that he hardly cared for the social exhilaration 


198 LEE THE AMERICAN 

they bring with them. Mrs. Davis deduces from his play¬ 
ful remark, “ ‘My cups in camp are thicker, but this is 
thinner than the coffee/ the intense realization that he 
had of the coarse ways and uncomfortable concomitants 
of a camp.” 7 But this is Mrs. Davis, not Lee. I think 
that, either by nature or by stoical self-discipline, he 
liked work, and cared little for the lighter pursuits of 
life, liked the soldier’s hardships, the soldier’s toil, even 
the soldier’s fare, as well as the soldier’s glory. “ He 
rarely relaxed his energy in anything calculated to 
amuse him,” says one of his biographers, “but, when 
not riding along his lines, or among the camps, to see in 
person that the troops were properly cared for, gener¬ 
ally passed his time in close attention to official duties.” 8 

Yet we know that he cherished to the full all the large 
traditions of Virginia hospitality. Whenever he mingled 
with his fellows in social relations, there was, at any rate 
in later years, a sweet, spontaneous courtesy about him, 
a ready tact, a kindly interest and sympathy, which 
won the affection of every one. “ Could anybody know 
him?” asks Mrs. Chesnut. Perhaps not. But people 
could and did love him. 

Women seem to have attracted him much and he had 
a singular charm for them. If he had love affairs in his 
youth, they have escaped record. He was young when 
he married Miss Custis, he was much younger when he 
fell in love with her. She made him a most worthy and 
devoted wife and no shade of any other affection seems 


LEE’S SOCIAL AND DOMESTIC LIFE 199 

ever to have interfered between them. Nevertheless, 
from youth to age, Lee loved a pretty girl, loved to chat 
with her, and jest with her, and write her gay trifles even 
in the midst of war. “Fond of the company of ladies,” 
says one of his officers, “he had a good memory for 
pretty girls. . . . While in Savannah and calling on my 
father, one of my sisters sang for him. Afterwards, in 
Virginia, almost as soon as he saw me, he asked after 
his ‘ little singing bird.’ ” 9 His letters to his daughters-in- 
law have a peculiar grace, vivacity, and charm. In the 
midwinter of 1863, with a load of care upon him that 
would have crushed most men, he finds time to write to 
a girl, of other girls, in this gay and sprightly fashion: 
“ I caught glimpses of sweet Carrie, but she was so sur¬ 
rounded by her little beaux that little could be got from 
her. But there was one tall one with her, a signalman of 
that voracious family of Randolphs, whom I threatened 
with Castle Thunder. I did not see her look at Rob once. 
But you know he is to take her home on certain condi¬ 
tions. I hope your mother has given her consent and 
that the cakes are baking. I also saw happy Mrs. Ada. 
Her face was luminous with content and she looked as 
if she thought there was but one person in the world.” 10 
And it was not only the pretty girls; Lee had, in 
its finest form, that Old-World courtesy and chivalry, 
honoring a woman as a woman, which it is something 
the fashion to sneer at now, perhaps because so many 
women are bent on considering themselves as men. In 


200 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


the very height of the war, when the general was incon* 
testably the most prominent man in the South, it was 
noted that he was the first to rise in a crowded car 
and offer his seat to a lady. 11 During the last desperate 
movement to Appomattox one woman, the wife of Dr. 
Guild, the surgeon, accompanied the headquarters of 
the army. Even in that crisis Mrs. Guild says that the 
general “ would come to my ambulance early in the 
morning with a cup of coffee, depriving himself for 
the only woman who was on that sorrowful, hopeless 
march.” 12 

The letter above quoted shows that Lee’s dignity and 
gravity did not prevent him from making and enjoying 
a jest. He had not, indeed, Lincoln’s wild inspiration 
of the comic spirit; but he had a twinkle of quiet fun, 
which made social life more gay and toil more easy. 
“ He was not exactly witty, nor was he very humorous, 
though he gave a light turn to table talk, and enjoyed 
exceedingly any pleasantry or fun even. He often made 
a quaint or slightly caustic remark, but he took care 
that it should not be too trenchant.” 13 

One would not suspect him of practical jokes, yet it 
is recorded that in the early days he rode double down 
Pennsylvania Avenue past the White House and a Sec¬ 
retary of the Treasury gaping with astonishment. 14 He 
loved to tease his young officers, one day assembling 
them all for a social treat around a most promising 
demijohn, from which he finally drew bumpers of his 


LEE’S SOCIAL AND DOMESTIC LIFE 201 


favorite stimulant — buttermilk; 16 another sending an 
aide at a grand review to “ tell a young lady that such 
and such a battery was coming.” “ I rode up,” says the 
officer, “ and saluted the young lady. There was great 
surprise shown by the entire party, as I was not known 
to any of them, and when I came out with my message, 
there was a universal shout, while the general looked on 
with a merry twinkle in his eye.” 16 

The same turn of gentle raillery was often given to 
much more serious matters, as when some one wrote 
that a stolen Bible was in possession of a Northern lady 
and Lee answered that if she made the use of it he hoped 
she would, it would before long be restored to its right¬ 
ful owner. 

Finally, Lee was by no means deficient in that most 
useful function of humor, the gift of laughing at one’s 
self. “You know she is like her papa,” he writes of one 
of his daughters, — “always wanting something.” 17 And 
to Mrs. Chesnut he defined his wants. “ He remonstrated 
and said his tastes ‘ were of the simplest.’ He only 
wanted ‘ a Virginia farm, no end of cream, fresh butter, 
and fried chicken, — not one fried chicken, or two, but 
unlimited fried chicken.’ ” 18 It takes a considerable 
sense of the comic to laugh at those who find one’s 
social manner charming. “ Last night,” writes Lee, 
“ there was a cadet hop. Night before, a party at Colo¬ 
nel Johnston’s. The night preceding, a college conversa¬ 
zione at your mother’s. ... You know how agreeable 


202 LEE THE AMERICAN 

I am on such occasions, but on this, I am told, I sur¬ 
passed myself.” 19 

The same gracious and quiet courtesy which distin¬ 
guished Lee in the lighter forms of social intercourse 
was also unfailingly apparent in all business transac¬ 
tions. “ General Lee had but one manner in his inter¬ 
course with men. It was the same to the peasant as to 
the prince, and the student was received with the same 
easy courtesy that would have been bestowed on the 
greatest imperial dignitary of Europe.” 20 Note, however, 
that in such cases the manner almost always is a manner 
and that the man who has it rarely gives himself. 

The substance of too much of our conversation, per¬ 
haps of the most brilliant part of it, is the faults and 
follies of our neighbors. Lack of this high seasoning 
may have made Lee less calculated to shine in general 
society. “ It can always be said of him that he was never 
heard to speak disparagingly of any one, and when any 
one was heard so to speak in his presence, he would al¬ 
ways recall some trait of excellence in the absent one.” 21 
On the other hand, what charms us most in talk is 
that some one older, wiser, whom we admire and respect, 
should defer to our opinions, as if they were really worth 
something. It appears that this attractive quality Lee 
had in the highest degree, and that in him it was not 
only tact, not only courtesy, but real humility by which 
the charm is always doubled. One of his subordinates 
in the college, during the years after the war, writes, 


LEE’S SOCIAL AND DOMESTIC LIFE 203 

“We all thought he deferred entirely too much to the 
expression of opinion on the part of the faculty, when 
we would have preferred that he should simply indicate 
his own views or desire.” 22 This is surely an interesting 
trait in a great and successful general and it shows in 
Lee’s military as well as in his civil relations. When he 
crossed the Potomac in June, 1863, he said to a mere 
staff officer, “ What do you think should be our treat¬ 
ment of the people in Pennsylvania?” 23 

Respect for the opinions of one’s friends and sympathy 
with all of them naturally breed the desire to reconcile 
them when they jar. Here lay one of the greatest secrets 
of Lee’s value to his country. Even in the early days in 
Mexico it was said of him : “ I remember nothing special 
in those visits except his desire to heal the differences 
between General Scott and some of his subordinate offi¬ 
cers and the efforts he was making in that direction, about 
which he conversed with me. He was a peacemaker by 
nature.” 24 Could there be a nobler eulogy for a mighty 
man of war? 

So much for Lee’s relations with the world at large. 
Had he near and intimate friends? To return to Mrs. 
Chesnut. “Could anybody say they knew him?” With 
her I am inclined to answer, “ I doubt it.” It is true that 
Davis said, “ He was my friend” ; but Davis was a master 
of figures of speech. That Lee loved many men, I know, 
that he gave them kindness and sympathy in unstinted 
measure, sometimes speaking in terms of glowing warmth 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


204 

and tenderness, as when he wrote to Beauregard, after 

Bull Run, “ I cannot express the joy I feel at the brilliant 

victory of the 21st. The skill, courage, and endurance 

* 

displayed by yourself and others excite my highest ad¬ 
miration ; ” 25 and to Joseph E. Johnston on the same occa¬ 
sion, “ I almost wept with joy at the glorious victory 
achieved by our brave troops. The feelings of my heart 
could hardly be repressed on learning the brilliant share 
you had in the achievement. ,, 26 Nevertheless, I find no 
word to indicate that he ever gave himself. 

Of all the friendships that he had, that with J. E. John¬ 
ston is undoubtedly the most interesting. They were 
Che two foremost generals of the Confederacy, rivals in 
position, rivals in power, rivals in the affection of their 
soldiers, far unequal only in the support and favor of 
their government. But in spite of all that tended to es¬ 
trange them, they seem to have cherished to the end 
an affection wdiich, if we are to believe one who knew 
them well, made them ‘‘meet after separation with the 
demonstrativeness of two schoolboys.” 27 A knowledge 
of the character of each lends a double charm to the 
beautiful words written by Johnston after his friend’s 
death : “We had the same associates, who thought, as I 
did, that no other youth or man so united the qualities 
that win warm friendship and command respect. For he 
was full of sympathy and kindness, genial, and fond of 
gay conversation and even of fun, that made him the 
most agreeable of companions, while his correctness of 


LEE’S SOCIAL AND DOMESTIC LIFE 205 

demeanor and language and attention to all duties, both 
personal and official, and a dignity as much a part of 
himself as the elegance of his person, gave him a super¬ 
iority that every one acknowledged in his heart.” 28 

Johnston follows this eulogy with a curious comment: 
u He was the only one of all the men I have known who 
could laugh at the faults and follies of his friends in such 
a manner as to make them ashamed without touching 
their affection.” Surely this is a rare tribute, rarely de¬ 
served, still more rarely bestowed. Is it ever deserved ? 
Can any man laugh at our faults and follies and not touch 
our afFection a little? Without accepting entirely the cyn¬ 
ical French saying, “ Ce sont nos faiblesses qui nous font 
des amis, et non pas nos vertus,” it is permitted to doubt 
whether friendship in all its comfortable ease, its large, 
unbuttoned relaxation, would be quite possible with one 
who was too ready to play the mentor, felt bound to play 
it, even under a smile. 

There are one or two anecdotes of Lee, many in fact, 
but one or two especially, full of the most fascinating 
significance, when read in connection with this remark of 
Johnston’s. In his very early youth Lee went to visit an 
old friend who lived in the ample, careless style of Vir¬ 
ginia hospitality, hunting by day and drinking by night, 
with an idle dissipation which the earnest boy could not 
approve. “The old man shrunk before the unspoken 
rebuke of the youthful hero. Coming to his bedside the 
night before his departure, he lamented the idle and use- 


206 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


less life into which he had fallen, excusing himself upon 
the score of loneliness, and the sorrow which weighed 
upon him in the loss of those most dear. In the most im¬ 
pressive manner he besought his young guest to be 
warned by his example; prayed him to cherish the good 

s 

habits he had already acquired, and proynised to listen to 
his entreaties that he would change his own life> and thereby 
secure more entirely his respect and affection ” (italics 
mine). 29 I read this, and even allowing for the biogra¬ 
pher’s embroidery, I say to myself that Lee was remark¬ 
able in other ways besides being commander of the Army 
of Northern Virginia. 

Let us take another incident showing not the bio¬ 
grapher’s point of view, but the friend’s who got the 
rebuke. It bears very closely on my doubts as to the 
intimacy of Lee’s friendships. General Wise had damned 
an intruding civilian out of camp. A few days after, Lee 
visited Wise, made himself delightfully agreeable at 
dinner to Mrs. Wise and other ladies who happened to 
be there, and then suggested to his subordinate that 
they should take a walk together: “ I knew what was 
coming,” said Wise, narrating the story. “ After telling 
me of the complaint made of my treatment of the Rich¬ 
mond man, and hearing my account of the affair, not 
omitting the apology and broadside, he laid his hand 
upon my arm, and with that graceful cordiality, which, at 
such times, tempered his stately dignity, he said, ‘Wise, 
you know as well as I do what the army regulations say 


LEE’S SOCIAL AND DOMESTIC LIFE 207 

about profanity. As an old friend, let me ask you if that 
dreadful habit cannot be broken — and remind you that 
we have both passed the meridian of life, etc.’ Seeing 
that he was in for a sermon, and one that I could not 
answer, I replied, ‘ General Lee, you certainly play the 
part of Washington to perfection, and your whole life 
is a constant reproach to me. Now, I am perfectly will¬ 
ing that Jackson and yourself shall do the praying for the 
whole Army of Northern Virginia, but, in Heaven’s name, 
let me do the cussin’ for one small brigade.’ Lee laughed 
and said, ‘Wise, you are incorrigible,’ and then rejoined 
the ladies.” 30 “The only man,” writes Johnston, “the 
only man.” And again I say to myself, “ Ce sont nos 
faiblesses qui nous font des amis, et non pas nos vertus.” 

But let us get still closer to Lee in his home. As to 
his dealings with those who were subordinate to him 
here, what record there is is favorable. The few slaves 
whom he himself inherited, he disposed of long before 
the war. Those who came into his charge by Mr. Custis’s 
will, under stipulation of manumission at a fixed date, he 
took the most watchful care of till the appointed time 
arrived and then set free. In the thickest of his military 
duties he writes to his son with deep concern as to their 
welfare : “ As regards Leanthe and Jim, I presume they 
had better remain with Mrs. D. this year, and at the end of 
it devote their earnings to their own benefit. But what can 
be done with poor little Jim ? It would be cruel to turn him 
out on the world. He could not take care of himself.” 81 


208 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


At the same time, it is curious to observe how the 
general curse of slavery could involve even a man like 
Lee in slander and reproach. A correspondent writes to 
the “ New York Tribune,” on June 24, 1859, saying that 
three slaves, two men and a woman, escaped from Lee’s 
plantation, had been captured and brought back. “ Colo¬ 
nel Lee ordered them whipped. The officer whipped the 
men and said he would not whip the woman, and Colo¬ 
nel Lee stripped her and whipped her himself. These are 
facts, as I learn from near relatives of the men whipped.” 
We who know Lee’s character know that they are not 
facts, and hardly require the indignant repudiation of 
another correspondent (June 28), who writes as an op¬ 
ponent of slavery, but with a thorough knowledge of 
the Lees, and shows not only the injustice of the attack, 
but its probable motive. But such things cannot have 
been agreeable. 

Lee’s own reference to this affair, in a letter to his son, 
is, “ I do not know that you have been told that George 
Wesley and Mary Norris absconded some months ago, 
were captured in Maryland, making their way to Penn¬ 
sylvania, brought back, and are now hired out in lower 
Virginia. . . . The ‘New York Tribune’ has attacked 
me for my treatment of your grandfather’s slaves, but I 
shall not reply. He has left me an unpleasant legacy.” 32 

Writing to a Western correspondent, after the war, 
Lee makes a still more explicit statement, doubtless in 
this same connection: “ I am very much obliged to you 


LEE’S SOCIAL AND DOMESTIC LIFE 209 

for your bold defense of me in the New York papers, at 
a time when many were willing to believe any enormity 
charged against me. This same slander, which you at 
the time denounced as false, was nevertheless circulated 
at the North, and since the termination of hostilities has 
been renewed in Europe. Yet there is not a word of truth 
in it, or any ground for its origin. No servant, soldier, 
or citizen, that was ever employed by me, can with truth 
charge me with bad treatment.” 33 

In the more personal domestic relations also Lee ap¬ 
pears to advantage. Of his father he saw little; but his 
devotion to his mother is as attractive in its delicacy and 
tact as in its completeness. Even in his early years she 
was a great invalid and he tended her as a woman might 
have done, “ carrying her in his arms to the carriage, 
and arranging her cushions with the gentleness of an 
experienced nurse.” 34 As he drove with her, he would 
make every effort to entertain her, “ assuring her with 
the gravity of an old man that unless she was cheerful, 
the drive would not benefit her. When she complained 
of cold or drafts, he would pull from his pocket a great 
jack-knife and newspaper and make her laugh with his 
efforts to improvise curtains, and shut out the intrusive 
wind which whistled through the crevices of the old 
family coach.” 35 On his departure for West Point, his 
mother said, “How can I live without Robert? He is 
both son and daughter to me.” 36 

As a father, Lee is better known to us than in any other 


210 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


aspect; for a very large number of his letters to his sons 
and daughters has been printed. In one of these Lee 
himself remarks : “ It has been said that our letters are 
good representations of our minds. They certainly pre¬ 
sent a good criterion for judgment of the character of 
the individual. You must be careful that yours make as 
favorable an impression of you as I hope you will de¬ 
serve.” 37 It is not fair, however, to judge Lee’s own char¬ 
acter too much by the tone of these paternal letters. A 
man may tell his near friends, with a smile, what Lee 
once told of his boy’s following him in the snow, imitat¬ 
ing his every movement and stepping exactly in his 
footprints. When I saw this,’ said the general, ‘I said 
to myself, “ It behooves me to walk very straight, when 
this fellow is already following in my tracks.” ’ ” 38 But 
such a thing in cold print sounds priggish. We know the 
stiltedness of Chesterfield’s letters to his son. Flaubert, 
too, wrote pages of inspiration to Mademoiselle X, pages 
of limitation to his beloved niece. It is well to turn occa¬ 
sionally from some of Lee’s letters to his family to his 
more sprightly correspondence with outside friends or 
more distant relatives. 

These reserves as to the paternal epistolary relation 
once accepted, no father’s attitude could be finer. His 
discipline was always steady. There was no injudicious 
relaxation, no spoiling. “ My mother I could sometimes 
circumvent, and at times took liberties with her orders, 
construing them to suit myself,” writes his youngest son; 


LEE’S SOCIAL AND DOMESTIC LIFE 211 

“but exact obedience to every mandate of my father 
was a part of my life and being at that time.” 39 In pub¬ 
lic and military matters Lee was absolutely stoical in his 
avoidance of all family favoritism. Foreign visitors could 
not conceal their astonishment at finding the son of the 
commander-in-chief serving in the ranks as a dirty and 
begrimed artilleryman. Another son lay wounded in a 
Union prison; his wife was dying at home. A Union 
officer imprisoned in Richmond begged that a letter 
might be written to Lee asking him to bring about an 
exchange. Lee wrote back that he would not ask any 
favor for his own son that could not be asked for the 
humblest soldier in the army. 40 

Lee’s letters to his children are full of advice and ad¬ 
monition, sometimes more or less conventional, but often 
expressed with touching sweetness and simplicity. Good 
evidence of this is the fact that they were counterfeited 
at a very early date. One expects forged documents 
after a great man’s death. But in the middle of the war 
a letter was widely circulated, purporting to be from Lee 
to one of his sons, but in reality manufactured by a 
clever newspaper man on a basis of fragments of real 
correspondence. There is enough authentic material, 
however, without resorting to forgery, and in this ma¬ 
terial there is a passionate sincerity of interest which it 

t 

would be difficult to forge: “You see I am following my 
old habit of giving advice, which I dare say you neither 
need nor require. But you must pardon a fault which 


212 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


proceeds from my great love and burning desire for your 
welfare and happiness. When I think of your youth, im¬ 
pulsiveness, and many temptations, your distance from 
me, and the ease (and even innocence) with which you 
might commence an erroneous course, my heart quails 
within me, and my whole frame and being trembles at 
the possible result. May Almighty God have you in his 
holy keeping.” 41 

We see here what there was back of discipline and 
advice; a devoted tenderness, a watchful care founded 
not only on parental duty, but on deep and abiding af¬ 
fection. ‘‘Oh, what pleasure I lose in being separated 
from my children. Nothing can compensate me for 
that.” 42 “ I wish I could see you,” he writes to his 
daughter, “ be with you, and never again part from you. 
God only can give me that happiness. I pray for it 
night and day.” 43 And elsewhere, “ I long to see you 
through the dilatory nights. At dawn when I rise, and 
all day, my thoughts revert to you in expressions that 
you cannot hear or I repeat. I hope you will always 
appear to me as you are now painted on my heart.” 44 

Nor was the affection a matter of feeling only; it was 
constantly taking practical forms of care and sacrifice. 
Lee was a good manager, exact in every detail of do¬ 
mestic economy, frugal and thrifty in the little affairs of 
daily life. I like to think of the rival of Frederick and 
Napoleon writing to his son, four months before Gettys¬ 
burg, “ If my pants are done, will you give them to Mr. 


LEE’S SOCIAL AND DOMESTIC LIFE 213 

Thomas, the bearer, who will bring them up to-morrow ? 
If they are not, keep them. I am on my last pair, and 
very sensitive, fearful of an accident.” 45 He cautions his 
family repeatedly as to care in money matters: “I wish 
you to save all your money, and invest it in some safe 
and lucrative way, that you may have the means to build 
up old Arlington, and make it all we would wish to see it. 
The necessity I daily have for money has, I fear, made 
me parsimonious.” 46 But it was that noble parsimony, 
which pinches self to comfort others ; and page after page 
of Lee’s life records his readiness in giving. All his care 
for Arlington was not for his own possession, for the 
place was his son’s, left him by his mother’s father; and 
when the son begged the father to accept it, Lee refused, 
“ not from any unwillingness to receive from you a gift 
you may think proper to bestow, or to be indebted to 
you for any benefit great or small. But simply because it 
would not be right to do so.” 47 After the war he showed 
himself in every way most anxious to aid his sons in es¬ 
tablishing themselves, and he had that crowning grace 
of giving, the abstinence from all dictation as to the use 
of the gift. “Will that suit you? If it does not, let me 
know what will, and you shall have that too.” 48 Also, 
he was as indulgent in trifles as in farms and barns. One 
Christmas season his youngest, pet daughter “ enumer¬ 
ated, just in fun, all the presents she wished — a long 
list. To her great surprise, when Christmas morning 
came she found each article at her place at the breakfast 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


214 

table—not one omitted.” 49 One hardly knows which 
to admire most, the father’s generosity or the daughter’s 
simple desires. This was she of whom her father said, 
“ She is always wanting something.” Apparently, with 
Lee-like moderation, she did not want much. 

As this incident shows, Lee not only loved his child¬ 
ren, but enjoyed them. The two do not always go to¬ 
gether by any means. In fact, just before the war he 
wrote, “ I have no enjoyment in life but what I derive 
from my children.” 50 And he enjoyed them in their 
childishness, their sports, their gayety. It is true that he 
did not quite approve of too much festivity in the midst 
of national disaster. “ There are too many Lees on the 
ball committee. I like them all to be present at battles, 
but can excuse them at balls.” 61 Into all the harmless 
home laughter, however, he was ready to enter at any 
time. He was full of pleasant jests and kindly teasing. 
"We all enjoyed that attention from him. He never 
teased any one whom he did not especially like.” 52 
“ Kiss your sisters for me. Tell them they must keep 
well, not talk too much, and go to bed early.” 53 “The 
girls are well and have as many opinions with as few 
acts as ever.” 54 “We are all as usual — the women of 
the family very fierce and the men very mild.” 55 

In Captain R. E. Lee’s charming volume, from which 
these natural touches are mainly drawn, we get many 
pictures of the great soldier with his children about him, 
and nothing shows him in a simpler, more attractive, more 


LEE’S SOCIAL AND DOMESTIC LIFE 215 

geninely human aspect. “ He was very fond of having 
his hands tickled, and, what was still more curious, it 
pleased and delighted him to take off his slippers and 
place his feet in our laps in order to have them tickled. 
. . . He would often tell us the most delightful stories, 
and then there was no nodding. Sometimes, however, 
our interest in his wonderful tales became so engrossing 
that we would forget to do our duty, when he would de¬ 
clare, i No tickling, no story.’ ” 56 Some persons may per¬ 
haps think the hero of Chancellorsville too dignified for 
such unslippered ease. But it strikes me that this matter 
of tickling reduces Lee more sweetly than almost any¬ 
thing else to the common level of mortality. Was there 
ever a more charming picture of Jove unparadised than 
this drawn by a Virginia girl after the war (italics mine)? 
“ I can only remember the great dignity and kindness 
of General Lee’s bearing, how lovely he was to all of us 
girls, that he gave us his photographs and wrote his name 
on them. He liked to have us tickle his hands, but when 
Cousin Agnes sat by him, that seemed to be her privilege. 
We regarded him with the greatest veneration. We had 
heard of God , but here was General Lee.” 57 That last 
touch a great poet might envy. 

In the most intimate of all human relations we natur¬ 
ally see Lee but very dimly. We know that Mrs. Lee 
was a charming wife and mother, always careful of the 
welfare of her family and always beloved by them, and 
that her husband’s devotion was unfailing. Brief glimpses 


216 LEE THE AMERICAN 

come to us of those little rubs which should always pro* 
perly occur in the best adjusted wedlock between differ¬ 
ing characters, and we see that they were taken in the 
light, sweet spirit in which they should be taken. “ My 
father, as I remember, always in full uniform, always 
ready and waiting for my mother, who was generally 
late. He would chide her gently, in a playful way and 
with a bright smile.” 58 “The Mini , the dear Mim y con¬ 
siders herself a great financier; consult her about the 
expenditure of money, but do not let her take it shopping, 
or you will have to furnish her with an equal amount to 
complete her purchases. She has such a fine eye for a bar¬ 
gain.” 59 But none of these rubs interfered with the hus¬ 
band’s constant affection and devotion, as tender in the 
long years of sickness and confinement as in the early 
glow of young love and perfect health. “To my mother, 
who was a great invalid from rheumatism for more than 
ten years, he was the most faithful attendant and tender 
nurse. Every want of hers that he could supply he anti¬ 
cipated. . . . During the war he constantly wrote to her, 
even when on the march and amidst the most pressing 
duties.” 60 

Yet as I turn to the limited number of these letters that 
have been printed, I find in them positive traces of the 
same limitations I have before noted. Lee lectures, — oh, 
so sweetly, and so kindly, and so gently, — but lectures. 
On his children : “You must not let him run wild in my 
absence, and will have to exercise firm authority over all 


LEE’S SOCIAL AND DOMESTIC LIFE 217 

of them. . . . Mildness and forbearance, tempered by 
firmness and judgment, will strengthen their affection 
for you, while it will maintain your control over them.” 61 
On the care of her own health: “ Systematically pursue 
the best course to recover your lost health. . . . Do not 
worry yourself about things you cannot help, but be con¬ 
tent to do what you can for the well-being of what pro¬ 
perly belongs to you. . . . Lay nothing too much to 
heart. Desire nothing too eagerly, nor think that ail 
things can be perfectly accomplished according to our 
own notions.” 62 This is playing the role of Marcus Au¬ 
relius, or, as General Wise would say, of Washington, to 
perfection. But — but — More than ever, I am forced 
to return to Mrs. Chesnut’s comment, “Can anybody say 
they know him ? ” 63 

The truth is, there are three motives which lead us to 
seek the society of others. First, we grow weary of our¬ 
selves. We wish to share our joys and sorrows, we wish 
others to help and strengthen us, above all, we wish others 
to fill the great void which is neither joy nor sorrow, but 
just the blank monotony of every day. With most of us 
the motive of social life is not that you are so charming, 
but that I am so dull. “ Why,” said the wife of the Har¬ 
vard professor, “ when there is no one else about, I go 
into the kitchen and talk to the cook.” Lee did not pre¬ 
fer the cook’s society to Robert E. Lee’s. He could fill 
his own void, desired no help or strength from others, or, 
at least, none that others could give him. It is only at the 


218 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


rarest moments that he expresses any sense of solitude 
or loneliness. “ I wish you were with me, for always soli¬ 
tary, I am sometimes lonely, and long for the reunion of 
my family once again. But I will not speak of myself but 
of you.” 64 Note even here the characteristic touch by 
which he turns instantly from discussion of his own affairs 
to discussion of others’. 

The second motive that leads us to go out among 
men is but a modification of the first, a desire to lead, to 
guide and manage and regulate the affairs of others. 
This makes the soldier and the statesman. It also makes 
the petty village official and the woman who advises the 
neighborhood, often most kindly and usefully. As it hap¬ 
pened, few men have had wider cure of souls and bodies 
than fell to Lee and no one can say he shunned what 
came to him. Yet I do not think he sought it or loved it. 
I do not think he desired either public or private respon¬ 
sibility. Certainly he had no wish to dictate or control. 
And few can have been moved less than he to seek the 
society of others for the pleasure that comes from assert¬ 
ing our own power over them. 

There remains a third social motive, kindness, tender¬ 
ness, sympathy, the sense of human kinship. And surely 
in no one was this element at least ever more present 
than in Lee. Perhaps its sweetest manifestation was his 
love of children. In one sense children ask everything 
and give nothing. In another sense they ask nothing 
and give all. They ask all your time and effort and 


LEE’S SOCIAL AND DOMESTIC LIFE 219 

attention. They do not ask yourself. This suited Lee 
exactly. Hence he loved children — and children loved 
him, which is surely the most flattering and conclusive 
evidence as to character. I cannot quote the multitude 
of charming anecdotes which support me here. “ On one 
occasion [after the war], calling at Colonel Preston’s he 
missed two little boys in the family circle, who were 
great favorites of his, and on asking for them he was 
told that they were confined to the nursery by croup. 
The next day, though the weather was of the worst de¬ 
scription, he went trudging back to their house, carrying 
in one hand a basket of pecan nuts, and in the other a 
toy, which he left for his sick friends.” 65 At another time 
a small girl, who had charge of her baby sister, saw the 
general come riding by. “ ‘ General Lee, won’t you please 
make this child come home to her mother ? ’ The gen¬ 
eral immediately rode over to where Fannie sat, leaned 
over from his saddle, and drew her up into his lap. 
There she sat in royal contentment, and was thus grandly 
escorted home. When Mrs. Letcher inquired of Jennie 
why she had given General Lee so much trouble, she 
received the naive reply: *1 could n’t make Fan go 
home, and I thought he could do anything.’ ” 66 

With animals it was something as with children. Lee 
loved them and they him. “ Everybody and everything 
— his family, his friends, his horse, and his dog—loves 
Colonel Lee,” was said of him before the war. 67 His let¬ 
ters are full of tender and humorous allusions to his cats 


220 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


and his horses. In his last years the old war-horse, Tra« 
veler, seemed to be almost as near to him as any living 
thing. “General Lee was more demonstrative toward 
that old companion in battle than seemed to be in his 
nature in his intercourse with men. I have often seen 
him, as he would enter his front gate, leave the walk, 
approach the old horse and caress him for a minute or 
two before entering his front door, as though they bore 
a common grief in their memory of the past.” 68 And 
Lee himself admits the same thing. “Traveler is my 
only companion; I may also say my only pleasure. He 
and I, whenever practicable, wander out in the moun¬ 
tains and enjoy sweet confidence.” 69 

What was the nature of that confidence ? Among the 
vast regrets for a lost cause and a nation ruined, did 
Lee also wish at moments that there was some human 
soul to which he could really unburden himself? “All 
are gay, and only I solitary. I am all alone.” 70 “You 
must make friends while you are young, that you may 
enjoy them when old. You will find when you become 
old, it will then be too late. I see my own delinquencies 
now when too late to mend, and point them out to you, 
that you may avoid them.” 71 Were these only the slight 
expressions of a temporary lack, or were they the true 
outcry of a longing for something never attained, per¬ 
haps impossible? We do not know. Lee had, however, 
one intimate friend, — God. But that requires a separate 
chapter. 


X 


LEE’S spiritual life 

Lee had, of course, a liberal education, though we do 
not know much of his early studies. Those pursued at 
West Point were largely technical; but before going to 
that institution he must have had a good grounding in 
the classics, for long after, when he was president of 
Washington College, he used to visit the Greek classes 
and astonish the students by his familiarity with that 
language. His general ideas as to educational matters 
were both broad and solid. During his college presi¬ 
dency, while sustaining as far as possible the old tradi¬ 
tions of culture, he seems to have taken decided steps in 
modern directions, — that is, towards practical training 
and individual development,—steps which meant far 
more in the South than in the North. ‘‘Nothing,” he 
wrote after the war, “ will compensate us for the depres¬ 
sion of the standard of our moral and intellectual cul¬ 
ture.” 1 And again, “The education of a man or woman 
is never completed till they die.” 2 

If Lee had written his proposed memoirs, we should 
be better able to judge whether he had literary gifts. As 
it is, his only bit of formal writing is the brief sketch pre¬ 
fixed to his father’s “ Memoirs.” Here, as in so many 
other matters, we see curiously the inheritance of the 


222 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


eighteenth century, its dignified finish, its determination 
to clothe even common things in lofty phraseology. The 
elder Lee takes cold because “ a slight, but driving snow 
which was falling, insinuated itself among the wrappings 
encircling his throat.” 3 Where it is more appropriate, 
this breadth of expression often attains real beauty and 
grandeur, as in some of the addresses and general orders 
to the army. “ Soldiers ! You tread with no unequal step 
the road by which your fathers marched through suffer¬ 
ings, privations, and blood to independence. Continue 
to emulate, in the future, as you have in the past, their 
valor in arms, their patient endurance of hardships, their 
high resolve to be free, which no trial could shake, no 
bribe seduce, no danger appall, and be assured the just 
God who crowned their efforts with success will, in His 
own good time, send down his blessing upon yours.” 4 

The reports, and especially the dispatches written in 
the field, contain no such literary effort. They are terse, 
and clear, saying what is needed and only what is needed. 
The familiar letters are less successful as mere writing. 
They are loose and hasty and not always correct in 
grammar and syntax. They are charming, however, so 
far as they show the intimate character of the man. 

In spite of his deep respect for education, I do not find 
that Lee had any great love for books or for things purely 
intellectual. In later years he expressed “ his lifelong re¬ 
gret that he had not completed his classical education 
(in which, however, he had a respectable scholarship) 


LEE’S SPIRITUAL LIFE 223 

before going to West Point” ; 5 and he thanks Worsley 
for the translation of the “ Odyssey ” in terms which in¬ 
dicate pleasure in the perusal of the original. Judge 
Tyler tells us that he could talk “ in the most interesting 
manner about the beauty of the tongue and the richness 
of the literature of Spain.” 6 Among English authors he 
is said to have been partial to Macaulay, especially the 
essays, which can hardly be considered the sign of a 
literary temperament, and in writing of his father he once 
quotes Burke. But it is really remarkable that in so varied 
and extensive a correspondence there should be so little 
reference to literature, even in its historical aspects. This 
seems the more curious when we turn to the letters of 
Harry Lee, — surely as much a man of action as his son, 
— and find a spirit keenly alive to literary questions, 
ready to criticize Racine and to delight in Sophocles. 

So with science. In Lee’s army the soldiers discussed 
Darwin and concluded that “Marse Robert” was suf- 

1 

ficient proof that man was not descended from apes. But 
I find no evidence that Lee himself ever gave a thought 
to the vast speculations that were unhinging the world. 
Perhaps it is worth while to refer in this connection to 
Mrs. Putnam’s shrewd remark that the Southern slave¬ 
holding planter was almost obliged in self-defense to 
adopt this attitude towards all modern thought. 

Even as to his profession there is no record of Lee’s 
making it a passionate study. He stood well at West 
Point, and results would certainly indicate that he did 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


224 

more. But nothing is said of his ever spending feverish 
days and nights, as did Jackson, over the campaigns of 
Frederick and the battles of Napoleon. 

Nor do I see that he was in any way sensitive to 
aesthetic pleasures. While one child assiduously tickled 
his toes and another narrated the story of the “ Lady of 
the Lake/’ he would occasionally break in with the re¬ 
citation of long passages of the poem, disconcerting the 
narratress and boring the tickler. This shows that he 
liked the poetry of Scott. (Mark Twain, by the way, be¬ 
lieved that Scott’s false chivalry was largely responsible 
for the Civil War.) But of other poetry no mention and 
no trace. I do not remember that the name of Shake¬ 
speare occurs once in all he wrote. Novels he disap¬ 
proved of, as many of us do —for others. “ Read history, 
works of truth, not novels and romances. Get correct 
views of life, and learn to see the world in its true light. 
It will enable you to live pleasantly, to do good, and, 
when summoned away, to leave without regret.” 7 The 
world would, indeed, be much less regrettable, if there 
were no novels in it. With painting and with music it is 
as with poetry. Lee may have enjoyed such things, but 
he makes no mention of his enjoyment. 

The nineteenth century had one aesthetic delight pecu¬ 
liarly its own, appreciation of the beauty of nature. 
This seems to have made somewhat more appeal to Lee; 
yet even here his language certainly gives no indication 
of ecstasy. A quiet Virginia farm life, in the fields and 


LEE’S SPIRITUAL LIFE 


225 

woods rather than in cities, pleased him best — that is 
all. “You do not know how much I have missed you 
and the children, my dear Mary. To be alone in a crowd 
is very solitary. In the woods I feel sympathy with the 
trees and birds, in whose company I take delight, but 
experience no pleasure in a strange crowd.” 8 “ I enjoyed 
the mountains as I rode along. The views are magni¬ 
ficent and the valleys so beautiful, the scenery so peace¬ 
ful. What a glorious world Almighty God has given us. 
How thankless and ungrateful we are, and how we labor 
to mar his gifts.” 9 

In short, the bent of Lee’s character was absolutely 
moral and practical. It is not to be inferred from this, 
however, that he was a man of no passions or that his 
staid decorum resulted from a lack of sensibility. We 
have seen that Longstreet thought his weakness as a 
general was an excessive fury of combat. At any rate, 
there is plenty of evidence that he had a good hot tem¬ 
per, which came to the surface on provocation. Colonel 
Venable, of his staff, says : “ No man could see the flush 
come over that grand forehead and the temple veins 
swell on occasions of great trial of patience and doubt 
that Lee had the high, strong temper of a Washington.” 10 
He disliked very much to have officers with a grievance 
allowed to make their way to him. At times this would 
happen. Immediately after one such occurrence, “ Gen¬ 
eral Lee came to the adjutant’s tent with flushed face, 
and said warmly, ‘Why did you permit that man to 


226 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


come to my tent and make me show my temper ? , ” 11 
In the same way he had a great dislike to “ reviewing 
army communications” and his aides spared him when 
they could. On one occasion Colonel Taylor had made 
matters as easy as possible; but the general “was not in 
a very pleasant mood; something irritated him and he 
manifested his ill-humor by a little nervous twist or jerk 
of the neck and head, accompanied by some harshness 
of manner.” Taylor became impatient and showed it; 
whereupon the general said, “ Colonel Taylor, when I 
lose my temper, don’t let it make you angry.” 12 

It is a curious coincidence that one of Lee’s few vio¬ 
lent explosions of wrath occurred when he found an ar¬ 
tilleryman brutally abusing a horse and that one of the 
rare recorded outbreaks of Grant was owing to the same 
cause. Apropos of Grant also, Lee is said to have once 
spoken sharply after the war, though not in the connec¬ 
tion we should expect. One of his university faculty had 
been criticizing the Union general with some harshness. 
“Sir,” said Lee, “if you ever presume again to speak 
disrespectfully of General Grant in my presence, either 
you or I will sever his connection with this university.” 13 
A particularly interesting example of Lee’s indigna¬ 
tion, because we see it, as it were, bursting forth and 
passing at once under control, is his reference to the 
desecration of Arlington: “Your old home, if not de¬ 
stroyed by our enemies, has been so desecrated that I 
cannot bear to think of it. I should have preferred it to 


LEE’S SPIRITUAL LIFE 


227 

have been wiped from the earth, its beautiful hill sunk, 
and its sacred trees buried, rather than to have been 
degraded by those who revel in the ill they do for their 
own selfish purposes. You see what a poor sinner I am, 
and how unworthy to possess what was given me; for 
that reason it has been taken away.” 14 

It was by considerations of this nature that Lee domin¬ 
ated his passions and secured the high temperance and 
triumphant control which were among his most marked 
characteristics. His temperance, however, was no less a 
spiritual grace than a moral victory. Here again the re¬ 
semblance to Grant is striking. Every one knows Grant’s 
quiet remark when some one prefaced a dubious story 
with the familiar “I believe there are no ladies present ” : 
“No, but there are gentlemen.” It is said of Lee also, 
“ I dare say no man ever offered to relate a story of ques¬ 
tionable delicacy in his presence. His very bearing and 
presence produced an atmosphere of purity that would 
have repelled the attempt.” 15 

Evidence of Lee’s supreme self-control in other direc¬ 
tions is hardly needed. The final disaster, surely as over¬ 
whelming as could befall a man, hardly broke his calm 
or wrung from him a complaint except for others. In 
good and evil fortune alike he strove to maintain the 
same stoical — or no, I should say, as he would have 
wished, Christian — fortitude. A striking instance of this 
is narrated by Taylor. Doubtless it could be paralleled 
in many other lives. Something similar is told of Stuart, 


228 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


of Cox on the Union side, and may remain untold of 
many a private soldier in the armies of the Potomac and 
of Northern Virginia. It is none the less noble and beau¬ 
tiful in Lee. The general had just received and read his 
mail, when Colonel Taylor appeared with the usual list 
of matters of army routine as to which the commander’s 
judgment was desired. “The papers containing a few 
such cases were presented to him; he reviewed and gave 
his orders in regard to them. I then left him, but for 
some cause returned in a few moments, and with accus¬ 
tomed freedom entered his tent without announcement 
or ceremony, when I was startled and shocked to see 
him overcome with grief, an open letter on his knees. 
That letter contained the sad intelligence of his daugh¬ 
ter’s death. . . . His army demanded his first thought 
and care; to his men, to their needs, he must first 
attend; and then he could surrender himself to his pri¬ 
vate, personal affliction.” 16 

The force of will which appeared as self-control in 
great matters showed in little as exactness, system, ac¬ 
curacy. It is said that in his youth his mother taught 
him rigid economy; and throughout life he continued 
to exercise it. He was as scrupulously punctual as Wash¬ 
ington, for himself and for others. When young men 
called on his daughters, he began his locking up exactly 
at ten o’clock and the callers were expected to conform. 17 
A member of his faculty once came to his office and 
asked for a certain paper. Lee told him where it could 


LEE’S SPIRITUAL LIFE 


229 

be found. Afterwards he said to him, “ Did you find the 
paper?” “Yes, General.” “Did you return it to the 
place where you found it ? ” “ Yes, General.” 18 Mrs. Lee 
said of her husband that “ he could go, in the dark, and 
lay his hand on any article of his clothing, or upon any 
particular paper, after he had once arranged them.” 19 
This minuteness seems to have been inborn. At any 
rate it appeared in early youth. “ His specialty was fin¬ 
ishing up. . . . He drew the diagrams on a slate; and 
although he well knew that the one he was drawing 
would have to be removed to make room for another, 
he drew each one with as much accuracy and finish, let¬ 
tering and all, as if it were to be engraved or printed.” 20 
The biographer quotes this as an admirable trait; but 
I have my doubts. A high authority has said, “ Never 
finish a thing after it is done.” And I am inclined to 
think that a prime attribute of greatness is disregarding 
the unnecessary. In commanding the Army of Northern 
Virginia for three years Lee must have sacrificed a world 
of intellectual if not moral scruples, and it is the more 
remarkable in him, since—like Jackson, if in less degree 
— he certainly had the germs of what is sarcastically 
termed the New England conscience. Imagine Crom¬ 
well or Napoleon, shortly after such a battle as Gettys¬ 
burg, writing the following: “ I have been much exer¬ 
cised as to how I can pay my taxes. I have looked out 
for assessors and gatherers in vain. I have sent to find 
collectors in the counties where I have been, without 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


230 

success. I wish to pay the amount as a matter of right 
and conscience, and for the benefit of the State, but can¬ 
not accomplish it. . . . In addition, I own three horses, 
a watch, my apparel, and camp equipage. . . . See if 
you can find some one that can enlighten me as to what 
I am to pay.” 21 

The same self-control, precision, economy of resource 
marked Lee in speech as in other things. There is no 
abandon in his letters, no freedom, no outpouring; and 
this unquestionably makes them somewhat colorless. So 
with his reports. He avoids the first person, wherever 
possible, and says, “ It was decided,” “ It was thought 
best.” How different this from the vivacity of Hooker 
or Sherman. Very rarely does he use brusque expres¬ 
sions, “ It may be only a Yankee trick” ; 22 or criticize his 
opponents freely: “His [Grant’s] talent and strategy con¬ 
sists in accumulating overwhelming numbers.” 23 Even 
his recorded conversations contain little that seems like 
unrestrained confidence. Thus, one is startled when one 
finds him supposed to have said, “ I have never under¬ 
stood why General Sherman has been commended for 
that march, when the only question was whether he 
could feed his army by consuming all the people had to 
eat ” ; 24 and the tone of his remarks to Badeau is even 
more unusual: “ He spoke very bitterly of the course of 
England and France during the war and said that the 
South had as much cause to resent it as the North ; that 
England especially had acted from no regard to either 


LEE’S SPIRITUAL LIFE 


231 

portion of the Union, but from a jealousy of the united 
nation and a desire to see it fall to pieces. England, he 
said, had led the South to believe she would assist them, 
and then deserted them when they most needed aid.” 25 
Bancroft speaks admirably of “ the wonderful power 
of secrecy of Washington in which he excelled even 
Franklin; for Franklin sometimes left the impression 
that he knew more than he was willing to utter, but 
Washington seemed to have said all that the occasion 
required.” 26 Lee, I think, resembled Washington in this 
and had an excellent faculty, when he was interrogated, 
of seeming to say much and saying little. Thus he an¬ 
swered a question about McClellan, “ I have always 
entertained a high opinion of his capacity, and have no 
reason to think that he omitted to do anything that was 
in his power.” 27 And when one of his officers tried to 
draw him out by speaking somewhat freely about an¬ 
other, Lee answered, “ Well, sir, if that is your opinion 

of General-, I can only say that you differ very 

widely from the general himself.” 28 

Reserve of this character is always liable to be misin¬ 
terpreted, and so we get what foundation there is for 
Badeau’s charge of duplicity. His complaint of this in 
reference to Lee’s reports seems rather absurd, for the 
unhappy necessities of war always involve some depart¬ 
ure from candor if not from veracity. But Badeau also 
criticizes Lee’s last correspondence with Grant, probably 
read and reread as much as any letters ever written in 



LEE THE AMERICAN 


232 

the world. To accuse Lee of intentional deception in any 
of these is preposterous; but the letter especially singled 
out by Badeau, that of April 8, 1865, is certainly not 
direct, simple, and straightforward, any more than is the 
other important letter in which Lee discusses Jackson’s 
share in the tactics of Chancellorsville. 

So far as Lee’s reserve is concerned, however, it must 
not in anyway be attributed to haughtiness or aristocratic 
superiority. It is true that he, like Washington, found it 
difficult to throw off his dignity, to mingle freely with 
his fellows in common intercourse; but there never was 
a man who believed more heartily in American liberty, 
in the absolute equality of all men before the law and be¬ 
fore God, who would have more entirely accepted Mr. 
H. D. Sedgwick’s noble definition of democracy — noble 
especially because it levels by exalting instead of lower¬ 
ing : “ The fundamental truth of democracy is the belief 
that the real pleasures of life are increased by shar¬ 
ing them.” 29 Lee hated parade, display, and ceremony, 
hated above all things being made an object of public 
gaze and adulation. His idea of high position was high 
responsibility, a superior was one who had larger duties 
as well as larger privileges, and the mark of a gentleman 
was a keen sense of the feelings and susceptibilities of 
others. 

This attitude has rarely been expressed more delicately 
than by Lee himself in a memorandum found among his 
papers after his death (italics mine): “ The forbearing use 


LEE’S SPIRITUAL LIFE 


233 

of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner 
in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over 
others is a test of a true gentleman. The power which 
the strong have over the weak, the magistrate over the 
citizen, the employer over the employed, the educated 
over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, 
even the clever over the silly — the forbearing or inof¬ 
fensive use of all this power or authority, or a total 
abstinence from it when the case admits it, will show the 
gentleman in a plain light. The gentleman does not 
needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a 
wrong he may have committed against him. He can not 
only forgive, he can forget; and he strives for that noble¬ 
ness of self and mildness of character which impart suf¬ 
ficient strength to let the past be but the past. A true man 
of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help hum- 
bling others .” 30 It reminds one of Dekker’s 
“ First true gentleman that ever breathed.” 

The thing that puzzles me, as it has doubtless puzzled 
many, is how much personal ambition had Lee under this 
august reserve, this firm moderation, this constant sacri¬ 
fice of self to duty. What led him into the army first? 
He is reported to have said in later years: “ The great 
mistake of my life was taking a military education.” 31 
Why did he make that mistake ? Was it merely the de¬ 
sire to follow his father’s profession ? Had he a love of 
adventure and excitement? Did he — like Jackson — in 
his early days cherish dreams of distant glory? Glimpses 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


234 

of such a passion may be caught in Washington’s youth¬ 
ful letters. I find no trace of it in Lee’s. When his friends 
display anxiety for his advancement, he discourages 
them. “ I hope my friends will give themselves no an¬ 
noyance on my account, or any concern about the distri¬ 
bution of favors. I know how those things are awarded 
at Washington, and how the President will be besieged 
by clamorous claimants, I do not wish to be numbered 
among them.” 32 And again : “ Do not give yourself any 
anxiety about the appointment of the brigadier. If it is 
on my account that you feel an interest in it, I beg that 
you will discard it from your thoughts.” 33 

By the time the Civil War came, this indifference to 
honors had grown to be a fixed habit. No one can doubt 
the sincerity of Lee’s repeated expressions of willingness 
to serve in any capacity where he could be useful. It is 
said that when Virginia first joined the Confederacy, he 
made arrangements to enlist as a private in a company 
of cavalry. 34 Later he observed to a restless subordinate, 
“ What do you care about rank ? I would serve under a 
corporal if necessary.” 35 And to Davis he wrote, after 
Gettysburg: “ I am as willing to serve now as in the be¬ 
ginning in any capacity and at any post where I can do 
good. The lower in position, the more suited to my ability 
and the more agreeable to my feelings.” 36 

But there is a harder test of self-sacrifice in these mat¬ 
ters than even the willingness to forego rank; and that 
is patience under criticism. Here, too, Lee is conspicu- 


LEE’S SPIRITUAL LIFE 


235 

ous. To be sure, Grant asserts that his great rival was 
not criticized. Less than some others, perhaps, but 
enough. And I think his immunity from it was partly 
due to the temper in which it was received. One of the 
finest passages in all his letters relates to this. “ My 
whole time is occupied, and all my thoughts and strength 
are given to the cause to which my life, be it long or 
short, will be devoted. Tell her not to mind the reports 
she sees in the papers. They are made to injure and 
occasion distrust. Those that know me will not believe 
them. Those that do not will not care for them. I laugh 
at them.” 37 And laughing at them, in his own sunny, 
kindly fashion, he told B. H. Hill that the great mistake 
of the war was in making all the best generals editors of 
newspapers. “ I am willing to serve in any capacity to 
w r hich the authorities may assign me. I have done the 
best I could in the field and have not succeeded as I could 
wish. I am willing to yield my place to these best generals, 
and I will do my best for the cause editing a newsaper.” 38 
The more widely one reads in the literature of the war, 
the more one appreciates the greatness of Lee’s indiffer¬ 
ence to glory, his absolute freedom from jealousy and 
self-justification. Doubtless there were other eminent 
examples of this on both sides ; but one grows heartsick 
over the petty disputes, the ignominious wrangling which 
identifies a grand cause with a little man. In many cases 
injured merit is only trying to get its rights and perhaps 
does not deserve blame. But here is precisely the hard- 


236 LEE THE AMERICAN 

est lesson of all. To abstain from justifying one’s self at 
the expense of others when one is wrong is not always 
easy. To abstain when one feels one’s self to have been 
right — that is the labor and the difficulty indeed. Even 
in this Lee succeeded, when so many failed. 

As to his love of adventure and excitement, we have 
seen in a previous chapter how rarely it appears. Beside 
the significant Fredericksburg phrase, “It is well that 
war is so terrible, or else we might grow too fond of it,” 
I like to put the quiet words, written after the war and 
very different from what we should expect from a soldier 
homesick for far-off battle and glory, “I much enjoy 
the charms of civil life.” 39 Altogether, a man to whom 
the ambitions of this world meant very little. Yet it was 
he who wrote of his daughter, “She is like her papa — 
always wanting something.” I wonder what he wanted. 

It is said that Darwin confessed that all he required 
for happiness in life was his scientific pursuits and the 
family affections. It might equally well be said that 
all Lee needed was the family affections and religion. 
And now, what about his religion ? 

Assuredly it was not a religion of sect. It was broad 
enough to go even beyond the bounds of Christianity 
and recognize earnestness of intention in those of a dif¬ 
ferent creed altogether. “ An application of a Jew soldier 
for permission to attend certain ceremonies of his syna¬ 
gogue in Richmond was indorsed by his captain: 4 Dis¬ 
approved. If such applications were granted, the whole 


LEE’S SPIRITUAL LIFE 


237 

army would turn Jews or shaking Quakers.’ When the 
paper came to General Lee, he indorsed on it, ‘Ap¬ 
proved, and respectfully returned to Captain-, with 

the advice that he should always respect the religious 
views and feelings of others.’ ” 40 Lee was an Episcopal¬ 
ian, but he had no narrow belief in the power of rituals 
or formulas. One of his friendly enemies, General Hunt, 
records that at the time of the excitement over Puseyism, 
efforts were made in the parish to which Lee belonged 
to enlist him on one side or the other of the contro¬ 
versy. He resisted these steadily, and on some public 
occasion, when the appeals were urgent, he remarked 
audibly to Hunt: “I am glad to see that you keep aloof 
from the dispute that is disturbing our little parish. That 
is right and we must not get mixed up in it; we must 
support each other in that. But I must give you some 
advice about it, in order that we may understand each 
other: Beware of Pussyism! Pussyism is always bad, 
and may lead to unchristian feeling; therefore beware 
of Pussyism! ” 41 He seems to have had ready always 
in controversy, whether religious or military, some pleas¬ 
ant turn of this kind, which assuaged bitterness and 
broadened bigotry. Thus, when a lady once complained 
to him that little Lenten food — fish, oysters, etc., — was 

obtainable in Lexington, he said to her, “ Mrs.-, I 

would not trouble myself about special dishes ; I suppose 
if we try to abstain from special sins, that is all that will 
be expected of us.” 42 




LEE THE AMERICAN 


238 

Nor was Lee’s religion a matter of dogma or theology. 
Some speculative doubts appear, indeed, to have beset 
him in his earlier years, and it is extremely curious to 
find the shadow of Unitarianism hinted at by one of his 
devout biographers as keeping him for a long time from 
the church (italics mine): “Although at that time, and 
for a score of years thereafter, his estimate of his own 
unworthiness, and some mistaken views of Christ , per¬ 
haps, prevented his making an avowal of the Christian 
faith and becoming a communicant of the church, he 
was, nevertheless, all the while guided and restrained by 
belief in the Bible, reverence for its Author as revealed 
therein, reliance more or less implicit upon the Saviour, 
and prayer secret, but sincere.” 43 When once these dif¬ 
ficulties were overcome, his acceptance seems to have 
been complete and unquestioning. He liked sermons to 
be simple and practical. “ It was a noble sermon, one 
of the best I ever heard — and the beauty of it was that 
the preacher gave our young men the very marrow of 
the Gospel.” 44 He liked prayers to be brief and to the 

point. “You know our friend-is accustomed to 

make his prayers too long. He prays for the Jews, the 
Turks, the heathen, the Chinese, and everybody else, 
and makes his prayers run into the regular hour for our 
college recitations. Would it be wrong for me to sug¬ 
gest to Mr.-that he confine his morning prayers to 

us poor sinners at the college, and pray for the Turks, 
the Jews, the Chinese, and the other heathens some other 




LEE’S SPIRITUAL LIFE 


239 

time ? ” 45 He avoided the discussion of speculative points, 
whenever possible. Some one asked him once whether 
he believed in the apostolic succession. He said he had 
never thought of it, and on another, similar occasion, 
“ I never trouble myself about such questions; my chief 
concern is to try to be a humble, sincere Christian my¬ 
self.” 46 

That humility is the key to this as to many other prob¬ 
lems in Lee’s character is indisputable, a genuine humility. 
Others might explain the universe and probe the mys¬ 
teries of God. Surely he need not. Indeed, it is recorded 
that he was reluctant to commit himself on any general 
matter of intellectual interest. “ He studiously avoided 
giving opinions upon subjects which it had not been his 
calling or training to investigate; and sometimes I 
thought he carried this great virtue too far.” 47 Too far, 
perhaps. But there are so many in these days, in all 
days, who do not carry it far enough. I think it is this 
entire and unconscious humility of Lee’s that saves him 
more than anything else from the wild doings of some 
of his biographers. He has no thought of his own excel¬ 
lences, nor of intruding them upon us. No one would 
have shrunk more than he from being held up as a 
model of perfection. 

Even in military affairs, where he knew his ground, 
the humility is always obvious. “ I could not have done 
as well as has been done, but I could have helped and 
taken part in a struggle for my home and neighbor- 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


240 

hood. So the work is done, I care not by whom it is 
done.” 48 But in matters of the soul the great warrior’s 
self-abasement is as touching as it is manifestly sincere. 
“ As we were about to leave his tent, Mr. Lacy said: ‘I 
think it is right that I should say to you, General, that 
the chaplains of the army have a deep interest in your 
welfare and some of the most fervent prayers we offer 
are in your behalf.’ The old hero’s face flushed, tears 
started in his eyes, and he replied with choked utterance 
and deep emotion: ‘ Please thank them for that, sir — I 
warmly appreciate it. And I can only say that I am noth¬ 
ing but a poor sinner, trusting in Christ for salvation, 

t 

and need all of the prayers they can offer for me.’ ” 49 
Lee’s religion was, therefore, mainly practical. He was 
most devout and constant in all religious observances, 
though his son does not conceal a human propensity to 
slumber during sermon time. He was ardent in worship 
both private and public. Such a curious religious democ¬ 
racy as prevailed in his army has probably not been seen 
in the world since the days of Cromwell. On one occasion 
he was hurrying with his staff to battle. The firing had be¬ 
gun and the shells were flying. But the cavalcade hap¬ 
pened to pass a camp meeting where some ragged veteran 
was holding forth in prayer. At once the commander-in¬ 
chief dismounted and he and all his officers, with bared 
heads, reverently took part in the simple worship. 80 Again, 
as the army was being moved rapidly across the James in 
1864 to meet Grant at Petersburg, Lee, with a thousand 


LEE’S SPIRITUAL LIFE 


241 

cares and duties on his shoulders, turned out from the 
road and knelt in the dust beside a minister, to ask tor 
guidance and blessing . 51 

All that I have written of Lee has indeed been written 
in vain, if it is necessary to point out that his religion 
was practical not only in form and observance but in the 
deeper touching and moulding of the heart. Perhaps the 
final test of this is utter and complete forgiveness of 
those who have injured or are trying to injure us, not 
the forgiveness of the lips (“ I forgive you as a Chris¬ 
tian,” said Rowena; “ which means,” said Wamba, “ that 
she does not forgive him at all ”), but the forgiveness of 
broad tolerance, of perfect understanding and sympathy, 
that is, of love. After the war a minister expressed him¬ 
self rather bitterly as to the conduct of the North. “ Doc¬ 
tor,” said Lee to him, “there is a good old book which 
says, ‘ Love your enemies.’ . . . Do you think your re¬ 
marks this evening were quite in the spirit of that teach¬ 
ing ?” 52 On another occasion a general exclaimed, “I 
wish those people were all dead ! ” “ How can you say 
so?” answered his chief. “ Now, I wish they were all at 
home attending to their own business, and leaving us to 
do the same.” 53 And he summed up the whole matter 
more generally: “I have fought against the people of 
the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest 
from the South dearest rights. But I have never cherished 
bitter or vindictive feelings, and have never seen the day 
when I did not pray for them.” 64 . 


242 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


The belief that “ the real pleasures of life are increased 
by sharing them” certainly finds application more com¬ 
pletely in religion than in anything else. No missionary 
ever had more ardent zeal than Lee for bringing the 
knowledge of God to all about him. Not that he had 
any air of being holier than others, of that reaching down 
a saving hand from vast heights of perfection which 
evokes a perverse desire not to be saved. Here as else¬ 
where his sw r eet humility averts any charge of too aggres¬ 
sive saintliness. “ He one day said to a friend in speak¬ 
ing of the duty of laboring for the good of others: ‘ Ah, 
Mrs. P-, I find it so hard to try to keep one poor sin¬ 

ner’s heart in the right w r ay, that it seems presumptuous 
to try to help others.’ ” 55 Nevertheless, one almost feels 
as if he cared more for winning souls than battles and 
for supplying his army wfith Bibles than with bullets and 
powder. Even this solemn aspect of things he could 
color occasionally wfith the gentle sunshine of his humor, 
as w^hen he remarked, on hearing that many of his 
soldiers were taking part in a revival, “I am delighted. 
I wfish that all of them would become Christians, for it is 
about all that is left them now.” 56 But under the smile 
there w r as a passionate earnestness which appears not 
only in his private talk, but in his public orders. “The 
commanding general . . . directs that none but duties 
strictly necessary shall be required to be performed on 
Sunday, and that all labor, both of men and animals, 
wfiiich it is practicable to anticipate or postpone, or the 



LEE’S SPIRITUAL LIFE 


243 

immediate performance of which is not essential to the 
safety, health, or comfort of the army, shall be suspended 
on that day. Commanding officers . . . will give their 
attention to the maintenance of order and quiet around 
the places of worship, and prohibit anything that may 
tend to disturb or interrupt religious exercises.” 57 These 
might be general orders of Cromwell or of Moses. 

When it came to the guidance of the young at Wash¬ 
ington College in later years, Lee’s fervor grew even 
more marked. “We had been conversing for some time 
respecting the religious welfare of the students. General 
Lee’s feelings soon became so intense that for a time his 
utterance was choked ; but, recovering himself, with his 
eyes overflowed with tears, his lips quivering with emo¬ 
tion, and both hands raised, he exclaimed: ‘ Oh, Doctor! 
if I could only know that all the young men in this col¬ 
lege were good Christians, I should have nothing more to 
desire.’ ” 58 You will remember that this man surrendered 
a great army and saw a nation sink to dust without a tear. 

The central fact of all religion is the personal relation 
to God, prayer. And it is here that I have followed Lee 
with the deepest interest. In our modern busy life most 
of us set God so far apart that we are in danger of losing 
sight of Him entirely. This springs in great part from 
reverence. We are afraid of soiling sacred things with 
the dust of every day. The mediaeval Christian had no 
such timidity. God was his companion, his friend, to be 
called on every hour, every moment, if needed. Go back 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


244 

two thousand years to the sweet, simple piety of an 
Athenian gentleman, Xenophon,—some call it degrad¬ 
ing superstition, — and see how he summons the divine 
to direct his comings and goings, to cast down his ene¬ 
mies and support his friends. Just so Lee. God gives the 
victory. God permits the defeat. God sends rain to mire 
the Virginia roads. He sends his sunshine to make them 
passable again. If God is appealed to passionately 
enough, devoutly enough, humbly enough, we win. If 
we lose, it is because we have not honored God suf¬ 
ficiently. But — but — what if your cause is wrong and 
the other right ? What if millions on the other side are 
praying, as honestly, as humbly, as zealously as you are? 
To set out to kill, to pray God to help you kill, those who 
are devoutly praying God to help them kill you — it 
inevitably recalls the eternal contradiction put with such 
vividness by the poet, — 

“For prayer the ocean is where diversely 

Men steer their course, each to a several coast; 

Where all our interests so discordant be 

That half beg winds by which the rest are lost.” 69 

These are old difficulties, but war always gives them 
a fierce and startling significance. I trust it will be be¬ 
lieved that I do not bring them up in any spirit of mock¬ 
ery. My one interest is to know what Lee thought of 
them. Did he meet them? Did he consider them? Or 
did he put them aside with the simple concreteness of 
his practical temperament? “ I had taken every precau- 


LEE’S SPIRITUAL LIFE 


245 

tion to insure success and counted on it. But the Ruler 
of the Universe willed otherwise and sent a storm to dis¬ 
concert a well-laid plan, and to destroy my hopes.” 60 
Does he never ask why? “I hope we will yet be able 
to damage our adversaries when they meet us. That it 
should be so, we must implore the forgiveness of God for 
our sins, and the continuance of his blessings .” 61 Does 
this never sound strange? Apparently not. since he 
repeats it and repeats it with an inexhaustible and, I can¬ 
not help adding, an at times exasperating piety. 

As to prayer on its more spiritual side, Lee’s use of it 
is naturally less revealed to us. That a relation to God 
so constant and so intimate as his should be turned to 
only for worldly advantage and material benefit is wholly 
unw r orthy of a nature so finely touched, and we must 
believe that the sweetest part of his religion lay in the 
high rapture and forgetfulness of spiritual communion. 
He was not one to speak of such experience, however, 
or to write of it. And we are only told that “ he was 
emphatically a man of prayer and was accustomed to 
pray in his family and to have his seasons of secret 
prayer which he allowed nothing else — however press¬ 
ing— to interrupt ”; 62 and again, “I shall never forget 
the emphasis with which he grasped my hand as, with 
voice and eye that betrayed deep emotion, he assured 
me that it [knowledge of prayer] was not only his com¬ 
fort, but his only comfort, and declared the simple and 
absolute trust that he had in God and God alone.” 63 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


246 

So I think we may conclude that the cardinal fact of 
Lee’s life was God. Schleiermacher said that Spinoza 
was God-intoxicated. It would be indecorous to speak 
of Lee as intoxicated with anything. But everywhere 
and always he had God in his heart, not so much the 
God of power, or the God of justice, or even the God of 
beauty, but the God of love, tempering the austerity of 
virtue, sweetening the bitterness of failure, above all, 
breathing loving kindness into the intolerable hell of 
war. There have been fierce saints who were fighters. 
There have been gentle saints who were martyrs. It is 
rare to find a soldier making war — stern war — with 
the pity, the tenderness, the sympathy of a true follower 
of Christ. 


XI 


LEE AFTER THE WAR 

IMMEDIATELY after the surrender Lee, a paroled prisoner 
of war, withdrew into private life and took no further 
official part in the affairs of his country. What he per¬ 
sonally desired, above all, was rest, quiet, solitude. “I 
am looking for some little, quiet home in the woods, 
where I can procure shelter and my daily bread, if per¬ 
mitted by the victor.” 1 In all the remaining five years 
of his life he never complained, never discouraged or 
disheartened others, never quarreled with the doom of 
fortune ; but those who watched him closely saw some¬ 
thing of the burden from which his heart could not get 
free. “ I never saw a sadder expression than General 
Lee carried during the entire time I was at Washington 
College. It looked as if the sorrow of a whole nation had 
collected in his countenance, and as if he was bearing 
the grief of his whole people. It never left his face, but 
was ever there to keep company with the kindly smile.” 2 
Lee’s attitude towards the United States Government 
was from the first one of loyal recognition and submis¬ 
sion. In June, 1865, he applied for amnesty under the 
President’s proclamation, and though his request was 
never formally granted, he acted in every way as if he 
considered himself a citizen of the united country. To 


248 LEE THE AMERICAN 

a friend he wrote, “ I believe it to be the duty of every 
one to unite in the restoration of the country, and the 
reestablishment of peace and harmony.” 3 And again, 
“ Were it worth his while to refer to my political record, 
he would have found that I was not in favor of secession 
and was opposed to war; in fact, that I was for the Con¬ 
stitution and the Union established by our forefathers. 
No one now is more in favor of that Constitution and 
that Union.” 4 When testifying before the Congressional 
Reconstruction Committee, he was questioned very 
closely in regard to his attitude toward future possible 
complications; but his answers, though characteristic¬ 
ally reserved, showed nothing but profound loyalty and 
hope. 

That he sympathized with the indignation of his coun¬ 
trymen over the ill-judged and mismanaged methods of 
so-called reconstruction is probable, though his language 
is always guarded. As to the great theme of Southern 
wrath,—the captivity of Davis, — Lee is full of pity for 
the captive, but does not abuse the captors. And why 
should he? In the place of Lee and Davis I should have 
done as they did. But from the Northern point of view 
they had striven rebelliously to overthrow an established 
government. They had wasted hundreds of thousands 
of lives and hundreds of millions of treasure. Any other 
people in any other age of the world would have hanged 
both of them without a moment’s compunction or 
delay. It would have been unwise, it would have been 



ROBERT E. LEE 
(From the painting by Pioto) 







LEE AFTER THE WAR 


249 

impolitic. Who dare say it would have been unhuman ? 
Yet the South complains, because Davis was subjected 
for a few months to petty annoyance and personal 
insult. 

But whatever his feelings or opinions, Lee absolutely 
refused to take any part in practical politics. His scru¬ 
pulous observance of his parole made him unwilling to 
recognize any continued relation to the Confederacy, as 
when he declined to share in the remains of the civil 
service fund from which other officers helped themselves 
freely. 5 It also made him unwilling to meddle in the 
political activities going on about him. To be sure, when 
he was urged by the Reconstruction Committee as to 
negro suffrage, he spoke out: “ My own opinion is that 
at this time they cannot vote intelligently and that giv¬ 
ing them the right of suffrage would open the door to a 
good deal of demagogism and lead to serious embar¬ 
rassments in various ways.” 6 Are there many people 
to-day who think that he was wrong? But in general he 
was faithful to his established rule: “ I must not wander 
into politics, a subject I carefully avoid.” 7 Even a nom¬ 
ination to the highest office in his native state was de¬ 
clined by him, partly on personal grounds: “ My feelings 
induce me to prefer private life, which I think more suit¬ 
able to my condition and age”; but mainly because he 
believed such action “ would be used by the dominant 
party to excite hostility towards the State, and to injure 
the people in the eyes of the country; and I, therefore, 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


250 

cannot consent to become the instrument of bringing 
distress upon those whose prosperity and happiness are 
so dear to me.” 8 

The desire for retirement and quiet was so strong that 
Lee avoided, if possible, everything connecting him with 
the war and all its memories. This does not mean that 
he had any occasion for regret; simply that a chapter 
of terrible agony was closed forever, and he wished his 
people as well as himself to look forward and not back. 
Nor does it mean that he forgot his old comrades. On 
the contrary, he remembered them too well, thinking of 
them every day and every hour, their unavailing toil, 
their fruitless sacrifice. “You will meet many of my old 
soldiers during your trip,” he said in 1869, “and I wish 
you to tell them that I often think of them, try every 
day to pray for them, and am always gratified to hear 
of their prosperity.” 9 

And they remembered him. Many and many are 
the stories told of long devotion, of high enthusiasm, of 
eager desire for a touch, for a glance even, that might 
be treasured always. The simplest of these stories are 
the sweetest. When he visited Petersburg in the last 
years, they thronged round his carriage and tried to 
take out the horses and so draw him into the city, but 
he declared if they did so, he should have to get out and 
help them. 10 Just after the war closed, he received the 
following letter, which needs no comment: “ Dear Gen¬ 
eral : we have been fighting hard for four years, and 


LEE AFTER THE WAR 


251 

now the Yankees have got us in Libby Prison. They 
are treating us awful bad. The boys want you to get us 
out if you can, but, if you can’t, just ride by the Libby, 
and let us see you and give you a cheer. We will all 
feel better after it.” 11 On one occasion the general was 
ill and a watchful attendant was taking pains to see 
that he was in no way disturbed. His room was on the 
ground floor and the nurse noticed a man step softly 
to the window and try to open the blinds. “ Go away,” 
she said. “ That is General Lee’s room.” The man went, 
murmuring, “ I only wanted to see him.” 12 

But though Lee was glad to meet his old soldiers, he 
was reluctant to talk of the war with them or with any 
one else. He did, indeed, plan “ to write a history of my 
campaigns, not to vindicate myself and promote my 
reputation, but to show the world what our poor boys 
with their small numbers and scant resources had suc¬ 
ceeded in accomplishing.” 13 But the history was never 
written, and I do not believe it ever would have been 
written. As time went on, he would have shrunk from it 
more and more. For this reason the few comments that 
he has left us are doubly precious. There is the delight¬ 
ful letter to the Union general, Hunter, who had sought 
Lee’s justification for the line of retreat from Lynchburg : 
“ I am not advised as to the motives which induced you 
to adopt the line of retreat which you took, and am not, 
perhaps, competent to judge of the question; but I cer¬ 
tainly expected you to retreat by way of the Shenandoah 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


252 

Valley, and was gratified at the time that you preferred 
the route through the mountains to the Ohio — leaving 
the Valley open for General Early’s advance into Mary¬ 
land.” 14 There are the rare observations on the Union 
commanders. As to McClellan: A friend “asked Gen¬ 
eral Lee which in his opinion was the ablest of the Union 
generals; to which the latter answered, bringing his 
hand down on the table with emphatic energy, ‘ McClel¬ 
lan, by all odds.’ ” 15 As to Grant, the often quoted but 
probably apocryphal expressions of extravagant eulogy, 
and the authentic written words showing respect and 
esteem, “ General Grant, who possesses magnanimity as 
well as ability.” 16 There is the characteristic advice to 
General Early as to the whole subject: “ I would recom¬ 
mend, however, that while giving facts necessary for 

your own vindication, you omit all epithets or remarks 

* 

calculated to excite bitterness or animosity between dif¬ 
ferent sections of the country.” 17 

Anything like interviewing it is needless to say that 
Lee shunned with disgust and he treated reporters with 
less civility than he showed to anybody else. “ One even¬ 
ing a correspondent of the ‘ New York Herald ’ paid him 
a visit for the purpose of securing an interview. The gen¬ 
eral was courteous and polite, but very firm. He stood 
during the interview, and finally dismissed the reporter, 
saying: 1 1 shall be glad to see you as a friend, but re¬ 
quest that the visit may not be made in your professional 
capacity.’” 18 Of Swinton he said, “He seemed to be 


LEE AFTER THE WAR 


253 

gentlemanly, but I derive no pleasure from my inter¬ 
views with bookmakers.” 19 

And if Lee shunned publicity through the press, he 
was even more unwilling to be made an object of per¬ 
sonal curiosity. On the rare occasions when he was per¬ 
suaded to appear in public places, he was received with 
an enthusiasm, a deference, a universal esteem and affec¬ 
tion which must have touched him. But his natural 
modesty and reserve shrank from all such manifestations, 
whenever possible. He frequently alludes to his feelings 
on the subject with gentle humor. “They would make 
too much fuss over the old rebel.” 20 “Why should they 
care to see me ? I am only a poor old Confederate.” 21 
And there is the delicious story of the raffle. “ I have had 
a visit since commencing this letter from Mrs. William 
Bath, of New Orleans, who showed me a wreath made 
in part, she says, of my, your [Mrs. Lee’s], and Mildred’s 
hair, sent her by you more than two years ago. She says 
she sent you a similar one at the time, but of this I could 
tell her nothing, for I remember nothing about it. She 
says her necessities now compel her to put her wreath 
up to raffle, and she desired to know whether I had any 
objection to her scheme, and whether I would head the 
list. All this, as you may imagine, is extremely agreeable 
to me, but I had to decline her offer of taking a chance 
in her raffle.” 22 

So, instead of glory and applause and raffles, Lee 
wanted quiet. He had neighbors, rich and poor, high and 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


-254 

humble, who adored him; and their homelike kindness 
and affection he thoroughly appreciated. His son writes 
that for days and weeks, after the family was established 
at Lexington, “ supplies came pouring to my mother from 
the people in the town and country, even from the poor 
mountaineers, who, anxious to ‘ do something to help 
General Lee,’ brought in handbags of walnuts, potatoes, 
and game.” 23 He had friends, old and new, who wrote 
him cordial and admiring letters and drew from him such 
charming replies as that addressed to the English poet 
Worsley, and many others. Best of all he had his family 
circle, the invalid wife to whom he gave constant care 
and who paid it back in sunshine, the sons and daugh¬ 
ters and daughters-in-law, whose serious concerns re¬ 
ceived his earnest attention and sympathy, and whose 
lighter doings he followed with the playful jest and 
kindly merriment under whi^h he took pains to veil the 
weight that always pressed his heart. 

It cannot be said that the many letters preserved from 
this period often contain frank outpouring, or indicate 
that Lee gave himself up to any human soul. Yet they 
are well worth attentive study as showing the constant 
tenderness of his nature and his watchful devotion to the 
welfare of those about him. And now and then there is 
a glimpse of profound emotion, as in the reference to his 
lost daughter. “ I shall go first to Warrenton Springs, 
North Carolina, to visit the grave of my dear Annie, 
where I have always promised myself to go, and I think, 


LEE AFTER THE WAR 


255 


if I am to accomplish it, I have no time to lose. I wish 
to witness her quiet sleep, with her dear hands crossed 
over her breast, as it were in mute prayer, undisturbed 
by her distance from us, and to feel that her pure spirit 
is waiting in bliss in the land of the blessed.” 24 

Much as Lee liked home and quiet, he was the last 
man in the world to sit down and fold his hands, to feel 
that his life’s task was done, while his limbs had strength 
in them. Even as a simple Virginian farmer he would 
have worked and worked hard. The world had seen too 
much of his greatness, however, to let him hide it in 
shadow. During all the years after the war offers kept 
coming to him, of establishment, of occupation, of pos¬ 
sible usefulness and assured emolument. An English 
nobleman offered him a%wintry-seat in England and an 

a^w< 


annuity of ^3000. Lee af^ereck “ I must abide the for¬ 


tunes and the fate 

to emigrate^^ft a Sout 
swered: “Th^mought 
all that must be left in 
and I prefer to struggle 
fate, rather than give up all 



people.” 25 He was urged 
ny to Mexico. He an¬ 
ting the country and 
rent to my feelings, 
oration and share its 



Many business positions of high^^or dignity were 
pressed upon him. He uniformly decliWd them, alleging 
that his training did not lie in that directimi and that his 
age rendered him incapable of performin^puch arduous 
labors. When he was told that no labors were expected 
of him, that his name was all that would be required, and 


t 




256 LEE THE AMERICAN 

that a large salary would be paid simply for the use of 
that, he replied that his name was not for sale. 27 

It was suggested that he should be at the head of 
a large house in New York to represent Southern com¬ 
merce, with immense sums of money at his disposal. He 
said in response: “ I am grateful, but I have a self- 
imposed task which I must accomplish. I have led the 
young men of the South in battle; I have seen many of 
them die on the field ; I shall devote my remaining ener¬ 
gies to training young men to do their duty in life. ,> 28 

For already, within a brief time after the war closed, 
he had accepted an office which in itself seemed neither 
very brilliant nor very profitable, at least when compared 
with the position Lee occupied in the eyes of the whole 
world. After much hesitati^«not as to brilliancy or 
profit, but as to his own fiti^K, he had yielded to the 


request of the trustees of 
would become their pre^ 
responsibilities of th 
August, 1865, “I ha 
discharge its duties to 
to the benefit of th 



hington C^^ge that he 
Fully in^Ksed with the 
e wrot^on the 24th of 
at I should be unable to 
action of the Trustees, or 
Should you, however, 
take a different \^^rand think that my services in the 
position tendere^me by the Board will be advantageous 
to the college mid the country, I will yield to your judg¬ 
ment and ac« 5 t it.” 29 

At that time the college consisted of forty students 
and four professors. 30 The endowment was unproductive 




\ 





/ 

/^njrla^o^ ( 5 )', '/f 6 



Clyv< 



_ cb£ a < / v '*b /x **^ 

-hi, UnfiS- ^ i 31 



iff / 


^a^x. ( 3 *.ra^L*-^>Cls-^ t \^^XAyCCi J^c^Ct, 

irf ^ s/Zl&st j£. 

£~XI^aU£^ 

(jj /Ttx ^o^i-£tyJ f cn. & if^ b't^^-il/ (// / /be 6 "i- , 





Jj- @u~L<Jxst £l<u^i 


X- 


(^/yCA^A^lyi. - J— ____ 

3 ^. ^ sAl^^CcZ/ £iA^Lc-~Sy/i QeA-A-^<UstA 



^rrv-A —, =*- ^ 

^di^pb-x./zZtZ/y^ (jj llJuU , (/^La_^ak^ jL^lCA/hst sZ^/ /./ 

Zfch- ^cZ^tsisj *r/ /j-j i u\ zfiz 

P/iaJ^i^yJ rf/.J/o^zfiz 9 .f' 

^7 —. /fo~(Z Z<~+Z£ZZy^ (Z Zifkx. (^XXA-^aJ^ZT^ c=J^ Zpttfa 




\A^<^Z^y?z~ a^^/ZfhcCt_j2t^Z- c ZIlal GU-Pz.p £— a 

p /^~C? ./ < t y AA i^-J ^AjuCt 

UA^-. /zZaZj. 


. , - - - - (T^t^t 

, _/ 2S&^/t '^/2S&_ cLurirj eL&A^ 


^ClC-MmaZc. aiJ~ tihh&x. vj~ Z^Z^TlZZcC A 




















'CtA_ 



•yttyy- <^traij^~^i 



4 L^U 


(l^UtuX 


y/ ’ // -y/- -A ^ / y CUfff^LA^I (l 

/ /LaX^L sto Sf/trt^L ^AA^c/^AA^y^- 


^^f ±4 ~^^<AalaC<aA 



^5^0 /^iASlA V/7V 

✓ y -/ „ ~? dZ-f-^^xA^JcA4^J (^/tn^A. /£c> \a^c^ft/?~ 

4^1/i ^A^/^aaa^cC. A'LAazi^a^a^ Icy^JiA 

^/</ l x PVCL^<- j4^d C&aLaAalastX; , 

<L//~ 

^dAdy> (jl^H^zy/ 4 ^/%^ u 7 / /~ 



'h%ddS^ (T^ia^ 

L^t-. 

^/J-(T\£C^aA $/c<rtA.dtsttAAA.y^.yjPf (^ClAA^A^xJ^/A^y 

J'.J. /tiJe^^A^ 


i^kuj ^ ^/O^fi/iA^tbii^ (2) Pf^c 


























LEE AFTER THE WAR 


257 

and the salary offered the new president — fifteen hun¬ 
dred dollars—was offered purely on a basis of faith. 
Lee’s great name told at once, and money and students 
began to appear. But it was by no means his intention 
to work only with his name. For five years he gave the 
best of his thought and toil to building up the institution 
which has most justly coupled him in glory with its great 
original founder, and all the qualities which had made him 
famous on the battlefield now displayed themselves with 
richer and more fruitful effort, in the ways of peace. It 
may indeed be thought that he did not show quite all the 
grasping greed of the modern college president when he 
wrote to a lady who was considering a large legacy, “ It 
is furthest from my wish to divert any donation from 
the Theological Seminary at Alexandria, for I am well 
acquainted with the merits of that institution, have 
a high respect for its professors, and am an earnest ad¬ 
vocate of its object. I only give you the information you 
desire and wish you to follow your own preferences in 
the matter.” 31 But perhaps, after all, such methods are 
not less effective than some that are more bustling. 

And in performing this arduous and useful work for 
others Lee doubtless brought happiness to himself also, 
as is shown by his most beautiful and striking observa¬ 
tion which I have already quoted and am glad to quote 
again. “ For my own part, I much enjoy the charms of 
civil life, and find too late that I have wasted the best 
part of my existence.” 32 Thus loved, honored, and 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


258 

revered by all, he labored fruitfully, till the end came, far 
too soon and doubtless hastened by his vast cares and 
vaster sorrows, on the 12th of October, 1870. He was 
buried, with simple ceremony, at Lexington, in the chapel 
which had been erected by his efforts, and which will be 
an object of pilgrimage to thousands who cherish his 
memory. 

But let us look more closely at what he accomplished 
in his college presidency for the profoundly interesting 
light it throws on the various aspects of his character. 
To begin with, as I have said, he worked. His was no 
ornamental position. He spent his days regularly in his 
office and attended personally to his immense correspond¬ 
ence, with so much faithfulness that a newspaper editor, 
who had occasion to send to a large number of college 
presidents a circular calling for an answer, relates that 
General Lee was the only one from whom he received a 
reply. 33 Nor did he confine himself to the details of the 
administrative side of his position. He was constant in 
visiting examinations and recitations, remaining a few 
moments, asking pertinent and stimulating questions in 
every sort of subject, then departing with the dignified 
bow of his grave, old-fashioned courtesy. 34 

And his intellectual interest was much more than a 
mere routine observation of pedagogical work. As may 
be seen from his yearly reports to the trustees, 35 he set 
himself at once to devise large educational plans, which 
went far beyond the means he had to work with and far 



,0-v *, 




ROBERT E. LEE 

As college president 





LEE AFTER THE WAR 


259 

beyond the traditions that prevailed about him. Brought 
up at once in old habits of thought and in modern prac¬ 
tical training, he would have saved, if possible, the lib¬ 
eral, classical culture of the past, combined it with the 
energetic commercial methods of new America . 36 He 
wanted to develop his scientific courses, his laboratories, 
begged money for them, sought teachers for them. He 
designed an elective system which was most broadly in 
advance of current ideas, yet he saw the necessity of 
checking such a system by rigid supervision and con¬ 
straint. In other words, so far as his limited opportunities 
will allow us to judge, he was a thinker in education as 
he was a thinker in war. 

But these were “ worlds not realized,” and I find him 
in his human relations even more worth study. He man¬ 
aged his faculty as he managed his generals, with firm¬ 
ness tempered by an ever-ready sympathy. In their per¬ 
sonal welfare he took the kindest and most genuine 
interest. “My wife reminds me,” says Professor Joynes, 
“ that once, when I was detained at home by sickness, 
General Lee came every day, through a deep Lexington 
snow, and climbed the high stairs, to inquire about me 
and to comfort her.” 37 At the same time he was minutely 
exacting himself about matters of duty and wished others 
to be so. A professor walked into church with his pipe- 
stem protruding from his pocket. This caused some com¬ 
ment in the faculty meeting, and the offender took out 
the pipe and began cutting off the stem. “ No, Mr. Har- 


26 o 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


ris,” said the general, “don’t do that; next time leave it 
at home.” 38 The narrow circumstances, not only of the 
college but of the whole South, seemed, to Lee, at any 
rate, to demand the closest economy. One day a profes¬ 
sor wished to consult a catalogue and was going to tear 
the wrapper off one that had been prepared for mailing. 
Lee hastily handed him another already opened. “ Take 
this, if you please.” 39 Regularity and punctuality were 
his cardinal principles and he did not like others to 
neglect them. A professor who was not always constant 
at chapel one day spoke of the importance of inducing 
the students to attend. Lee quietly remarked, “ The best 
way that I know of to induce students to attend is to set 
them the example by always attending ourselves.” 40 
Some of these anecdotes and the many others like 
them suggest that Lee may have appeared just a little 
of a martinet, just a little over-particular. I suspect that 
he did occasionally appear so to some who have forgot¬ 
ten it now, or who do not wish to remember it. Yet the 
general testimony is that kindness of manner made up for 
any sharpness of speech; and as we have seen that his 
greatness in war came from his wide knowledge of all 
rules and his perfect willingness to fling them aside at 
the right moment, so we find that in peace he thought 
nothing of tradition or system when it trammeled the 
progress of the soul. “ Make no needless rules,” he told 
his teachers . 41 Again, “We must never make a rule that 
we cannot enforce.” 42 And when one of them appealed to 


LEE AFTER THE WAR 


261 


precedent and urged that “ we must not respect persons,” 
Lee replied, “ I always respect persons and care little 
for precedent.” 43 Coming from a man whose life was 
built on law and the reverence for law, I call that 
magnificent. 

On this nice balance of law and liberty his whole dis¬ 
cipline of the college was based. It might be supposed 
that as a military man, brought up in a military school, 
he would be a firm believer in the military methods of 
training of which we nowadays hear so much. It is only 
another instance of his breadth of mind that this was 
not so. “ I have heard him say,” writes Professor Joynes, 
“that military discipline was, unfortunately, necessary 
in military education, but was, in his opinion, a most un¬ 
suitable training for civil life.” 44 Without going to any 
opposite extreme, he believed, as we have seen above, 
in reducing rules to the minimum, in making rules sim¬ 
ple and not vexatious, believed that the highest aim of 
education is to produce a type of character which shall 
leave rules unnecessary. “ Young gentleman,” he said 
to one newcoming student, “ we have no printed rules. 
We have but one rule here, that every student be a gen¬ 
tleman.” 45 And in a general circular issued after some 
public disturbance he embodied his idea completely. 
“The Faculty therefore appeal to the honor and self- 
respect of the students to prevent any similar occurrence, 
trusting that their sense of what is due to themselves, 
their parents, and the institution to which they belong, 


262 LEE THE AMERICAN 

will be more effectual in teaching them what is right and 
manly than anything they can say.” 46 

Such leniency of system sometimes works havoc. Not 
when it is supported by the personal force which Lee 
gave it. He used the same methods with his students 
that he had used with his soldiers. His reprimands were 
gentle and quiet, but they were effective. They did not 
sting, but they stirred and touched and inspired. Rough 
and bitter he could not make them. When some one 
remonstrated a little on this, he answered: “ I cannot 
help it; if a gentleman can’t understand the language of 
a gentleman, he must remain in ignorance, for a gentle¬ 
man cannot write in any other way.” 47 Nevertheless, 
it seems that he usually achieved his object. For all his 
gentleness, the wildest boys were apt to come out of his 

office in tears. One, who had boasted that this would not 

% 

happen, underwent the same experience as the rest. 
“ What did he do to you ? Did he scold you?” were the 
eager inquiries. “ No; I wish he had. I wish he had 
whipped me. I could have stood it better. He talked to 
me about my mother and the sacrifices she is making to 
send me to college, and before I knew it, I was blubber¬ 
ing like a baby.” 48 

As with his officers and soldiers, he had endless ingen¬ 
ious devices of kindly fun for making reproof more tol¬ 
erable — and more effectual. A student was once called 
to account for absence. “ Mr. M., I am glad to see you 
better,” said the general, smiling. “ But, General, I have 


LEE AFTER THE WAR 263 

not been sick.” “ Then I am glad you have better news 
from home.” “ But, General, I have had no bad news.” 
“ Ah,” said the general, “ I took it for granted that noth¬ 
ing less than sickness or distressing news from home 
could have kept you from your duty.” 49 In the same 
vein Mr. Page has a story of being late for prayers and 

the general’s asking him to ‘tell Miss - that I say 

will she please have breakfast a little earlier for you?” 50 

And again, as with the officers and soldiers, back of 
Lee’s discipline there was love. He was not thinking 
of his own dignity, or even of the reputation of the col¬ 
lege. He was thinking first of the boy and of what could 
be done to save him. And the boy knew it. It is said 
that often in the faculty meetings, when a case seemed 
hopeless and expulsion the only remedy, Lee would plead, 
“Don’t you think it would be better to bear with him a 
little longer? Perhaps we may do him some good.” 51 

With scholarship it was as with discipline for conduct. 
Lee made it a point to know every student, know his 
character, know his record, know even his marks, when 
necessary. A boy’s name was one day mentioned. “ I 
am sorry to see he has fallen so far behind in his mathe¬ 
matics,” the general observed. “ You are mistaken, Gen¬ 
eral, he is one of the very best men in my class.” “He 
only got 66 on his last month’s report,” was the gener¬ 
al’s answer. Investigation showed that the president was 
right as to the report, but a mistake had been made in 
copying 66 for gg . 52 



LEE THE AMERICAN 


264 

Reproof, encouragement, exhortation as to study were 
given in the same vein, with the same tact and ingenious 
aptness, as for other things. To one parent of a neglig¬ 
ent pupil he writes : “ I have myself told him as plainly 
but as kindly as I could that it was necessary for him to 
change his course, or that he would be obliged to return 
home. He has promised me that he would henceforth 
be diligent and attentive, and endeavor to perform his 
duty. I hope that he may succeed, for I think that he is 
able to do well if he really makes the effort.” 63 Of an¬ 
other similar case he remarked, in his humorous fashion, 
“ He is entirely too careful of the health of his father’s 
son. . . . We do not want our students to injure their 
health studying, but we want them to come as near to 
it as it is possible to miss. This young gentleman, you 
see, is a long way from the danger-line.” 54 And again, 
he offered a like suggestion to the pupil himself: “ How 
is your mother ? I am sure you must be devoted to her; 
you are so careful of the health of her son.” 55 

Many of these incidents are doubtless trivial in them¬ 
selves. They are valuable as showing how entirely Lee 
was devoted to his work, and that he threw himself into 
the task of building up a little college with as much zeal 
as he had given to the creating of a great nation. What 
counted with all these young men was his personal influ¬ 
ence and he knew it. In point of fact, he was creating, 
or re-creating, a great nation still. His patience, his cour¬ 
age, his attitude towards the past, his attitude towards 



HEAD FROM VALENTINE’S RECUMBENT STATUE OF LEE 











LEE AFTER THE WAR 265 

the future, his perfect forgiveness, his large magnanim¬ 
ity, above all, his hope, were reflected in the eager hearts 
about him and from them spread wide over the bruised 
and beaten South, which stood so sorely in need of all 
these things. I have referred in an earlier chapter to the 
immense importance of his general influence in bringing 
about reconciliation and peace. It is almost impossible 
to overestimate this. We have the high Northern evi¬ 
dence of Grant: “All the people except a few political 
leaders in the South will accept whatever he does as 
right and will be guided to a great extent by his exam¬ 
ple.” 56 Perhaps nothing will better illustrate the passion¬ 
ate testimony of Southerners than a simple anecdote. A 
Confederate soldier told General Wise that he had taken 
the oath of allegiance to the United States. “You have 
disgraced the family,” said Wise. “General Lee told me 
to do it.” “ Oh, that alters the case. Whatever General 
Lee says is all right, I don’t care what it is.” 57 Does not 
the knowledge of these things double the pathos of that 
profoundly pathetic sentence in one of Lee’s late letters ? 
“ Life is indeed gliding away and I have nothing of good 
to show for mine that is past. I pray I may be spared to 
accomplish something for the benefit of mankind and 
the honor of God.” 68 If he had accomplished nothing, 
what shall be said of some of us ? 

Yet in spite of all this, it must be admitted that Lee’s 
life will always be regarded as a record of failure. And 
it is precisely because he failed that I have been inter- 


266 


LEE THE AMERICAN 


ested to make this study of him. Success is the idol of 
the world and the world’s idols have been successful. 
Washington, Lincoln, Grant, were doubtless very great. 
But they were successful. Who shall say just how far 
that element of success enters into their greatness. Here 
was a man who remains great, although he failed. 
America in the twentieth century worships success, is 
too ready to test character by it, to be blind to those 
faults success hides, to those qualities that can do with¬ 
out it. Here was a man who failed grandly, a man who 
said that “ human virtue should be equal to human 
calamity,” and showed that it could be equal to it, 
and so, without pretense, without display, without self- 
consciousness, left an example that future Americans 
may study with profit as long as there is an America. 

A young sophomore was once summoned to the presi¬ 
dent’s office and gently admonished that only patience 
and industry would prevent the failure that would inev¬ 
itably come to him through college and through life. 

“ But, General, you failed,” remarked the sophomore, 
with the inconceivable ineptitude of sophomores. 

“ I hope that you may be more fortunate than I,” was 
the tranquil answer. 59 

Literature can add nothing to that. 


THE END 


APPENDIX 




















APPENDIX 


LEE AND PSYCHOGRAPHY 

What I have aimed at in this book is the portrayal of a soul. 
We live in an age of names and a new name has recently been 
invented — psychography. This means, I suppose, an art 
which is not psychology, because it deals with individuals, 
not general principles, and is not biography, because it swings 
clear of the formal sequence of chronological detail, and uses 
only those deeds and words and happenings that are spiritu¬ 
ally significant. 

New names are often attached to old things. This thing is 
as old as Plutarch, as old as the Bible, as old as the first man 
who reflected on his fellows and sketched them with one brief 
word that made others reflect. What a portrait painter was 
Tacitus, and Clarendon, and Saint-Simon. But the nine¬ 
teenth century, with its scientific training, brought more 
method to the work, more patient curiosity, more desire to 
base its results on deep research, and delicate discrimination. 
Matthew Arnold’s essay on Falkland is an English master¬ 
piece in this kind. Lowell wrote A Great Public Character . 
Mr. Rothschild, in his Lincoln: Master of Men } has drawn a 
full-length with loving care. And there are others too numer¬ 
ous to mention. But the prince of all psychographers is 
incontestably Sainte-Beuve. He is usually spoken of as a 
literary critic. In pure literature he has some limitations. As 
what he himself called “a naturalist of souls” 1 he has never 
been surpassed, or equaled, or even approached. 

The art of painting souls has its difficulties. First, one 


270 


APPENDIX 


would wish to be fair-minded, impartial, free from prejudice. 
This is, I think, impossible, and the impartial historian, or 
biographer, — that is, he who studies his subject in and for 
itself, without preconception or prepossession, without an 
instinctive disposition to misrepresent from one cause or an¬ 
other, — does not exist. There are simply those who think 
they are impartial and those who know they are not. 

To begin with, there is the cruder element of political, or 
religious, or social partisanship, from which none of us is 
wholly free. Tacitus can see little good in a Caesar. Clarendon 
finds the Devil’s finger pushing Cromwell. Saint-Simon hates 
a parvenu. Mommsen has to justify the imperialism of 
Prussia in the imperialism of Rome. These are the extremes. 
Beside them Mr. Rhodes and Gardiner seem fair, dispassion¬ 
ate judges. Are they so? Mr. Rhodes’s admirable history is 
spoken of as perfectly impartial — by Northerners. South¬ 
erners usually refer to it as the least partial of Northern his¬ 
tories. Certainly, in spite of all reserves and concessions, Mr. 
Rhodes throughout takes the Northern view of things — as is 
natural and right. So Gardiner, for all his fairness, obviously 
praises the Puritans because they were Puritans, the Cavaliers 
although they were Cavaliers. Indeed, it is not impossible 
that the open, avowed, and evident partisanship of Clarendon 
(discarding, of course, all question as to accuracy of fact) 
makes safer reading than the disguised, insinuating partisan¬ 
ship of Gardiner. 

But these established prepossessions of creed or preference 
are not the only obstacles to the psychographer’s impartiality. 
He is exposed to another danger which is greater according as 
his gift of artistic treatment and expression is greater. That 
is the danger of making his means more than his end, of taking 
such vigorous and startling measures to attract the attention 


APPENDIX 


271 


of his readers and stir their passions that he emphasizes both 
the good and the evil in his subject far more than nature war¬ 
rants or justice allows. This is the real weakness of such 
writers as Macaulay and Froude, far more than their political 
prejudices, just as, in a different order of literature, it is the 
weakness of Dickens. Macaulay doubtless loved the Puri¬ 
tans. But he loved a clever rhetorical touch far more than 
any Puritan. It was well to make his readers delight in the 
champions of liberty. It was even better to make his readers 
stare and gasp at the skill with which he painted a champion 
of liberty or a tool of Satan. Therefore his high lights are very 
high and his shadows very deep. 

“Lord Macaulay had, as we know, his own heightened 
and telling way of putting things,” says Matthew Arnold. 
Sainte-Beuve also has his tranquil judgment on “the clever 
and dangerous counsels of M. Macaulay, much in vogue at 
present. ‘The best portraits,’ says that great historical 
painter, ‘are those in which there is a slight touch of exag¬ 
geration. . . . Something is lost in exactitude, but much 
is gained in effect. . . . The less important features are ne¬ 
glected, but the great characteristic traits are permanently 
impressed upon the mind.’ It is thus that many great figures 
are revamped and made over long after they have passed 
away.” 2 I have said that Sainte-Beuve was “a naturalist of 
souls.” Macaulay might well be called “a showman of souls.” 

In dealing with historical material of all sorts one finds it 
constantly necessary to be on one’s guard against this tend¬ 
ency. Thus, with the innumerable anecdotes bearing on the 
Civil War, the plain, uncouth narrative of a soldier who has 
no pretension whatever to literature often gives the impression 
of being far more reliable than the polished version contributed 
by a John Esten Cooke or a George Cary Eggleston. 


272 


APPENDIX 


But this is not all. A psychographer may rid himself to a 
considerable degree of general prejudices. He may by habit 
and temperament grow to think first, last, and always of his 
subject, never of his effects (which is the sure cure for rhet¬ 
oric). And still he may fall into an even more pervasive and 
treacherous form of misrepresentation: he may be misled by a 
personal affection for his subject, for his model, for what, in 
a certain sense, becomes almost his own child. Probably no 
biographer who is worth much is altogether free from this. It 
is the obvious cause of the undue partiality which Sainte- 
Beuve is said to show towards some of his minor figures, such 
as the Guerins. Gaston Boissier’s portrait of Cicero is one of 
the most lucid, most limpid character studies ever made, 
absolutely free from any suggestion of rhetorical effect; but on 
every page you feel the painter’s love for his subject, and that 
the defects which are neither slurred nor palliated are touched 
in a very different spirit from that in which a lover of Caesar 
would have touched them. 

In our own war literature Henderson’s Jackson is an excel¬ 
lent example of what I mean. There are few saner, more 
exact, judicial tempers than Henderson’s. Not on any ac¬ 
count would he deliberately have concealed or misrepre¬ 
sented any flaw or weakness in his hero. Yet, by some subtle, 
inexplicable alchemy, everything turns to Jackson’s credit; 
and words and acts which might have been used by others 
only to make him repulsive and ridiculous serve in Henderson 
to make him heroic and lovable. 

Finally, the psychographer has to contend with another 
humiliating difficulty, the indisposition to change his mind 
when it is once made up. You labor widely, through 
thousands of dull pages. Gradually your picture arranges 
itself in neat order and correct detail. You see your sub- 


APPENDIX 


2 73 

ject as you think it must finally stand. Then comes some 
little sentence in an out-of-the-way magazine, or some 
kindly correspondent reveals a flaw you could not have dis¬ 
covered, and large readjustment seems to be indicated. You 
are ready for it — oh, yes. You accept it, if true — oh, yes. 
But it is surprising, the amount of ingenuity you expend 
in convincing yourself that it is not true, that it may be ex¬ 
plained, disputed, adapted. When you come to your senses, 
you laugh at yourself; but you are so ready to do the same 
thing again! 

All these subjective difficulties beset the charming art of the 
psychographer; but the objective are no less, perhaps greater. 
Every portrait of a character must be based finally upon that 
character’s own words and actions. As regards actions, it is 
obvious that we depend entirely upon report, and little study 
is needed to make it plain that a man’s own report is unre¬ 
liable and that of others much more so. The reliability, in¬ 
deed, varies. Report at third or tenth hand by incompetent 
witnesses differs considerably in quality from that trans¬ 
mitted by a trained observer in direct contact. But this lat¬ 
ter is difficult to obtain and at the very best must be used with 
caution. A man’s eyes are the servants of his mind and all 
minds are biased to some degree. Therefore the mass of 
biographical anecdote and reminiscence has to be sifted and 
tested by numerous almost instinctive criteria before it can 
be profitably employed. 

When it comes to a man’s words, we are on surer ground; 
that is, to his own written words; for words reported by 
others belong in a quite different category. If we can consult 
a manuscript as it was actually penned, we have material 
which, so far as it goes, is indisputable and invaluable. Unfor¬ 
tunately this is in all cases difficult, in many impossible. For 


274 


APPENDIX 


the most part, we are obliged to rely on a printed copy, and 
printed copies are very far from being verbal facsimiles. Even 
when we are guaranteed against willful omission or emenda¬ 
tion on the part of editors, the danger of error is by no means 
eliminated. Printers are careless, proof-readers indifferent. 
No text of historical documents, made before the nineteenth 
century learned conscientiousness in such matters, is to be 
used with security, and few since. I do not suppose the most 
scrupulous historian will ever again consult the original 
records of the Civil War. Probably the printed copies are to 
be implicitly relied on. Yet they were made by many people 
and passed through many hands. Who knows? 

Take one very trifling yet significant instance of slight verbal 
variation. Jones, Fitzhugh Lee, and Captain R. E. Lee all 
reprint the important letter in which Lee refers to the capture 
of Mason and Slidell, and they all print differently one little 
word which might have quite a bearing on Lee’s instinctive 
mental attitude towards his old allegiance. Lee assures Mrs. 
Lee that the United States will not go to war. ‘ ‘ Her (R. E. L.) 
The (Jones) Our (F. Lee) rulers are not entirely mad.” Which 
did Lee write? None of the three quite commends itself, 
though Captain Lee’s text is probably correct. But the point 
is that each editor prints his own version with placid indiffer¬ 
ence and not a hint that there is the slightest doubt about the 
matter. A trivial thing, you say. So it is. But an inch on a 
man’s character is sometimes prodigious, and it is precisely 
in the trivial things that the danger lies. Here is another case 
of the mere variation of a letter. In his eulogy of Lee, B. H. 
Hill apparently called him “a man without guile” and so it 
stands in some texts; a harmless compliment, surely. But 
other proof-readers have it “a man without guilt” and this 
calls down upon Hill a page of abuse from Rhett in the 


APPENDIX 


275 

Southern Magazine for daring to place Lee on a level with 
Christ. 

If we cannot trust a man’s own written words, what are we 
to do about words attributed to him by others? Generally 
speaking, we can have no confidence in them whatsoever. If 
you have tried at a half-hour’s interval to recall the exact 
form of some speech that has been made to you, you know the 
difficulty and how apt you and other auditors are to differ. 
Yet in these mattersof character study theexact form is some¬ 
times all-important. Who can suppose that even trained and 
conscientious observers like Boswell or the Goncourts really 
get a stenographical report of the long conversations which 
they write down so industriously three or four hours after 
hearing them? And if not they, who? Can any one doubt 
that these reporters unconsciously arrange, adapt, and supply 
words and phrases which they know to be generally character¬ 
istic of the man, but which may never have been uttered in 
that connection and which the speaker would disown? An 
admirer declared that the Goncourt conversations “sweated 
authenticity.” But Renan at least energetically disavowed 
his share in them. 

The ancient historians, Livy, Tacitus, even Thucydides, 
have been abused and ridiculed for inventing the speeches of 
great historical characters. But I am not at all sure that a 
thinker and an artist, knowing the man he dealt with, and the 
occasion, and the substance of the speech, would not produce 
something more humanly accurate and characteristic than 
comes from many a stenographic reporter to-day. 

Sainte-Beuve has some excellent sentences on this matter 
of reported speech. “ I must, in my turn, point out, that from 
such conversations, reported and repeated at leisure, even 
when they are reproduced with the utmost sincerity, we can 


276 


APPENDIX 


accept only the significant touch and the general drift. As 
regards the details, inexactitude and guesswork always enter 
in more or less. And, moreover, memory is a great adapter 
and arranger (la m6moire aussi est une arrangeuse).” 3 

In estimating the value of words attributed to a historical 
character, one rule, well known to the critics of classical texts, 
is often useful; viz., that among several doubtful readings, the 
least intelligible, the least smoothly conventional, is the most 
likely to be correct. For example, I feel sure that Lee’s 
eulogy on Stuart, “He never brought me a piece of false in¬ 
formation,” reads exactly as it was spoken; for no “arranging” 
memory would have been satisfied with a turn of phrase so 
baldly inadequate. 

Even when there is a reasonable assurance that we have the 
actual language used, how seldom do we get all the meaning 
a speaker intended to convey. Words by themselves are so 
little. The emphasis is so much. The smile or gesture is so 
much. No reporter succeeds in giving us these; yet how far 
they go in enhancing or diminishing the bare significance of 
speech. 

Nevertheless, we will assume that we start from an exact 
knowledge of a man’s words and actions. Still, we are only on 
the threshold, only lifting the latch of the door which leads to 
the secret of his character. We must get back of word and 
action to the motive beneath. The deeper one’s study, the 
wider one’s experience, the less confidence one has that this 
can be done. “We may know historical facts to be true, as we 
know facts in common life to be true. Motives are generally 
unknown,” said Dr. Johnson. 4 Different actions so often 
spring from the same motive and the same action from differ¬ 
ent motives. Ambition does the deeds of loving kindness and 
haughtiness of humility. Greed sometimes squanders and 


APPENDIX 


277 


charity pinches itself and those it loves. Again and again a 
man fails to understand his own motives, even when he tries 
to disentangle them, errs ludicrously in making an honest 
attempt to explain them in warm words or in cold print. How, 
then, can we ever be confident of penetrating the motives of 
those who lived years ago, with different habits of speech, 
different habits of thought, viewing them in a mirror so 
uncertain as we have seen the records of the past to be? 

Perhaps I may be permitted another illustration from the 
subject which has most recently brought all these questions 
to my mind. General Porter, describing Lee’s surrender, says 
that afterwards, as the general stood on the porch of the 
McLean house waiting for his horse, he struck his hands to¬ 
gether. There can be no question about the fact here. So 
good an observer as Porter has told us only what actually 
took place. I have followed Porter further in the assumption 
that the motive for this gesture was an immense despair. But 
neither Porter nor I know anything about it, and an uncom¬ 
fortable suspicion besets me that, after all, Lee may have 
been only calling for his horse. 

But even with a sure knowledge of fact and an unfailing 
insight into motive, the exact portrayer of character would 
still have a wide, uncharted course to travel. For he must 
finally resort to general terms. His subject is honest, gener¬ 
ous, frank. Well, an honest man is one who does nothing that 
is not honest. A generous man does only what is generous. A 
frank man always speaks the truth. In other words, all traits 
of character are merely generalizations from habitual action 
and motive; and on a foundation in itself utterly unstable we 
must rear an edifice as shifting and fleeting and uncertain as 
the clouds of heaven. When Macaulay says of Laud, “his 
understanding was narrow ... he was by nature rash, irri- 


278 


APPENDIX 


table, quick to feel for his own dignity, slow to sympathize 
with the sufferings of others,” 5 we get a vivid impression 
which stays with us, but which may have been wholly borne 
out by the facts, or mainly, or very insufficiently. When Saint- 
Simon says of La Feuillade, “I don’t think there was ever a 
madder head or a man more radically dishonest to the very 
marrow of his bones,” 6 we feel that we are beholding a fellow 
creature damned beyond the limit of human desert. And 
the weakness of all such soul portrayal is admirably shown 
in one of Clarendon’s most striking specimens of it. “He 
quickly lost the character of a bold, stout, magnanimous 
man, which he had been long reputed to be in worse times; 
and, in his most prosperous season, fell under the reproach of 
being a man of big looks, and of a mean and abject spirit.” 7 
We see suggested here how slight is the basis of all our moral 
generalizations and how uncertain is the interpretation of 
motives on which even that slight basis rests. “There is,” says 
Sainte-Beuve, “a degree” — and perhaps we may conclude a 
very limited degree — “of intimacy beyond which it is not 
given to man to advance in the study of his fellow man! 
There are secrets which the great Anatomist of heart keeps 
only for himself.” 8 May we not establish one final test of a 
thorough knowledge of character; that is, the prediction of 
action under given circumstances? But who of us dares often 
predict with any certainty the action of others, or even his 
own? 

If, then, the portrayal of character is so difficult — not to 
say impossible — why persist in it ? First, because, largely on 
account of this very difficulty, it is the most fascinating of 
human pursuits. The naturalist spends long days or months 
of patient toil in observing the habits of a bird or an insect. Is 
not the human soul of more value than many insects? Also, 


APPENDIX 


279 


with birds and insects the naturalist rarely attempts to go 
beyond the species or concern himself with the individual. 
With humanity the individual is endless in variety, inex¬ 
haustible in interest. What a delight, after going through 
pages that are irrelevant and for one’s purpose unprofitable, 
to find some sentence that, in Sainte-Beuve’s phrase, reveals 
“bare soul”! It is as if one had groped for hours in darkness 
and then suddenly opened a little window into bright heaven. 
Such, for example, is the careless touch in Cavour’s letters, 
which sums up a whole glorious career, and stamps the eternal 
difference between the founders of modern Italy and modern 
Germany: “ Je suis fils de la liberty et c’est k elle que je dois 
tout ce que je suis.” 9 Some writers, as Pepys, are studded 
thick with these jewels of self-revelation. But perhaps the 
pleasure of finding them is even greater when they are com¬ 
paratively rare, as with Lee; and I shall not soon forget 
my delight in the reported phrase, “It is well that war is 
so terrible, or else we might grow too fond of it,” and the 
written one, “She is like her papa — always wanting some¬ 
thing.” 

Moreover, the art of character study is recommendable not 
only for its charm, but for its utility. The knowledge of birds 
and insects is of merely indirect advantage to us. The know¬ 
ledge of men and women, obscure, imperfect, incomplete as 
it necessarily is, profits us from the cradle to the grave. The 
infant, hardly able to speak, learns whom it can wheedle, and 
whom not. The child, but little older, knows very well that 
its parent forgives a fault or grants a privilege more readily 
after dinner than before. All of us always build and unbuild 
the character of others, observe, divine, detect, use instinct¬ 
ively every little indication of face, of tone, of gesture. We 
often blunder, often go far astray. The wisest are those who 


28 o 


APPENDIX 


recognize most clearly their utter lack of exact knowledge and 
most frequently exclaim, — 

“ Oh, that there were an art 
To read the mind’s character in the face.” 

Yet they persist, because they must. And all men and women 
are, whether they know it or not, if I may say so, mutual 
psychographers. 

For this purpose of mutual self-knowledge some may ques¬ 
tion whether it is essential or desirable to choose prominent 
figures rather than the man in the street. They say, it is not 
the great men, who are remote and above us, who help us to 
understand ourselves, but those who have lived a little petty 
life of trifles such as we live. 

To begin with, the man in the street is less accessible. He 
does not leave letters and memoirs. His speech and actions 
are not jealously observed and faithfully recorded. We may 
study him for our own profit, daily, as we can. But the per¬ 
manent portrait painter must look further afield for the 
material with which to work. 

Then, men who have lived large lives and filled great places 
bring more of their humanity into action. A violin that is 
played on in only one small portion of one string yields us far 
less than one that is swept broadly from end to end of its 
entire compass. A man who for forty years has carried the 
wide world’s burdens on his shoulders may not have finer 
natural faculties than you or I, but at least he has brought 
every faculty into use with all the might he has in him. 

In other words, the main advantage of studying great men 
comes not because they are great, but because they are not 
great. Carlyle wished to exalt a few choice heroes and let the 
rest of humanity bow down to them. The opposite seems to 


APPENDIX 


281 


me the true course, to insist that all men may be heroes if they 
will. What strikes me most in men who have achieved greatly 
is not their difference from others but their resemblance to 
them. They are in all points tempted as we are, laugh as we, 
weep as we, suffer as we, fail as we, and for the most part are 
astonished at triumphing as much as we should be. And do 
not urge that this is the old theory of “no man a hero to his 
valet,’’ and that in applying it generally I am only display¬ 
ing a most valet-like spirit. I hope not. For it is not my aim 
to debase them, but to exalt us. When it is shown that great 
personages, who left a name behind them, had only qualities 
like ours, often defects like ours, and that they made their 
greatness perhaps by a happy balance of qualities or by an 
extreme development of some particular quality, perhaps 
even a little by the kindliness of fortune, it seems to me that 
we should be led to emphasize rather what we may be than 
what they were not. If Lee had something of my weakness, 
may I not have better hope of attaining something of Lee’s 
nobleness? 

It must be confessed that such a method of studying heroic 
characters depends for its success largely upon the spirit in 
which it is carried on. It may easily degenerate into the 
trivial, the gossiping, or even the scandalous. The distinc¬ 
tion between what is humanly significant and mere gossip 
is not always simple. Even mere gossip may be immensely 
amusing, but the psychographer is concerned only with that 
which has a bearing upon character. Thus, if my neighbor’s 
wife falls downstairs and breaks a leg, I may be civilly sympa¬ 
thetic, but I shall feel no scientific interest. But if she runs 
away with the coachman, the psychological problem attracts 
my curiosity at once. To take a historical instance. Mrs. 
Chesnut, in her invaluable Diary , tells a long story of a 


282 


APPENDIX 


colored waiter who was convulsed by the blank baldness of 
Joe Johnston. This is entertaining, but it shows me nothing 
of Johnston’s character. On the other hand, she remarks, in 
one brief sentence, that Johnston spent an afternoon enlarging 
to her and a friend on Lee’s and Jackson’s mistakes. Here we 
have a revelation. 

Still, the border line between psychography and gossip is 
easy to cross, especially when the psychographer is unkindly. 
Indeed, the art, to have its richest usefulness, should be based 
upon love. Our observer of birds and insects almost always 
loves them with a personal tenderness. Much more, I think, 
will the observer of men gain by loving them. To be sure, 
there have been great observers who seem to have hated. But 
the very wisest, richest, deepest — Sophocles, Shakespeare, 
Cervantes — have always loved; sometimes laughed a little, 
teased a little, mocked a little, but loved always. Humanity 
has been to them a strange thing, a pitiable thing, sometimes 
a deplorable thing; but even in its lowest vice and degrada¬ 
tion, as in its height and grandeur, lovable, because they 
themselves were human. 

It is in this point of love that Sainte-Beuve is weakest. He 
prided himself on understanding everything (le pere Beuve 
avec son touchant d6sir de tout comprendre) and I think a 
little on loving nothing. Therefore his very subtlest work is 
sometimes bitter, and bitterness is no help to psychography 
or to anything else. 

It is an advantage to have a subject like Lee that one cannot 
help loving. I say, cannot help. The language of some of his 
adorers tends at first to breed a feeling contrary to love. Per¬ 
sist and make your way through this and you will find a hu¬ 
man being as lovable as any that ever lived. At least I have. 
I have loved him, and I may say that his influence upon my 


APPENDIX 


283 


own life, though I came to him late, has been as deep and as 
inspiring as any I have ever known. If I convey but a little of 
that influence to others who will feel it as I have, I shall be 
more than satisfied. 

















NOTES 



TITLES OF BOOKS MOST FREQUENTLY 
CITED, SHOWING ABBREVIATIONS USED 


Battles and Leaders of the Civil War. 

Cooke, John Esten, Life of General Robert E. Lee. 

Dabney, R. L., Life and Campaigns of General 
T. J. Jackson. 

Davis, Jefferson, Rise and Fall of the Confederate 
Government. 

Davis, Varina Howell, Jefferson Davis. 

Henderson, G. F. R., Stonewall Jackson and the 
American Civil War. 

Jackson, Mary A., Life and Letters of General 
T. J. Jackson. 

Jones, J. B., A Rebel War Clerk's Diary. 

Jones, J. W., Life and Letters of General Robert 
E. Lte. 

Jones, J. W., Personal Reminiscences , Anecdotes , 
and Letters of General Robert E. Lee . 

Lee, Fitzhugh, General Lee. 

Lee, R. E., Recollections and Letters of General 
Robert E. Lee. 

Long, A. L., Memoirs of Robert E. Lee. 

Mason, E. V., Popular Life of General Robert 
E. Lee. 

McCabe, J. D., Life and Campaigns of General 
Robert E. Lee. 

Military Historical Society of Massachu¬ 
setts, Publications. 

Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies 
(quoted by serial nos. throughout). 

Pollard, E. A., Life of Jefferson Davis. 

Pollard, E. A., The Lost Cause. 

Rhodes, J. F., A History of the United States , from 
the Compromise of 1850. 

Southern Historical Society Papers. 

White, H. A., Robert E. Lee and the Southern 
Confederacy. 

Wood, W. B., and Edmunds, J. E., History of the 
Civil War in the United States. 


Battles and Leaders. 
Cooke. 

Dabney. 

Rise and Fall. 

Mrs. Davis. 

Henderson. 

Mrs. Jackson. 

Jones, Diary. 

Jones, Life. 

Jones, Rem. 

F. Lee. 

R. E. L. 

Long. 

Mason. 

McCabe. 

M. H. S. of M. t 

O. R. 

Pollard, Davis. 
Pollard, L. C. 

Rhodes, U. S. 

S. H. S. P. 

White. 

Wood and Edmunds. 


NOTES 


CHAPTER I 

1. For an exhaustive discussion of the Lee genealogy, see Lee of Vir¬ 
ginia, by Edmund Lee. (Philadelphia, 1895.) 

2. S. H. S. P., vol. ix, p. 198. 

3. F. Lee, p. 2. In his memoir of his father, however, the general goes 
quite extensively into the English affiliations. 

4. Jones, Life, p. 33. 

5. To Mrs. Lee, in F. Lee, p. 22. 

6. Works (ed. Ford), vol. x, p. 222. 

7. Jones, Life, p. 154. 

8. Long, p. 23. 

9. Charles Lee, quoted in Lee’s memoir of his father, p. 29. 

10. Long, p. 19. 

11. Jones, Rem., p. 118. 

12. G. M. Sorrel, Recollections of a Confederate Staff Officer, p. 74. 

13. Manassas to Appomattox, p. 287. 

14. Mason, p. 24. 

15. To Cabell, November, 1820, Works (ed. Ford), vol. x, p. 165. 

16. Writer in Putnam's Monthly, quoted in Olmsted, Journey to the 
Seaboard Slave States, p. 245. 

17. Ibid. 

18. Jones, Life, p. 24. 

19. Jones, Life, p. 27. 

20. John Quincy Adams, Diary, vol. vn, p. 209. 

21. Thomas Nelson Page, The Old South, p. 184. 

22. Journey to the Seaboard Slave States, p. 247. 

23. Long, p. 33. 

24. Jones, Rem., p. 291. 

25. Jones, Rem., p. 290. 

26. Testimony at Pillow Inquiry, Senate Doc., 30th Congress, First 
Session, vol. vm, p. 73. 

27. Report in Senate Doc. as above, vol. 1, p. 332. 

28. Report in Senate Doc. as above, vol. 1, p. 306. 

29. Report in Senate Doc. as above, vol. 1, p. 315* 

30. Long, p. 61. 

31. Ibid. 

32. Colonel Preston, direct from Scott, in “Lee Memorial Address,” 


288 


NOTES 


printed in Mason, p. 382. I find in F. Grasset’s La Guerre de la Secession , 
vol. 11, p. 59, a saying attributed to Scott, which I have not been able to 
trace to an American source, but which, if not a prophecy manufactured 
after the event, has a good deal of interest: “Defiez-vous de Lee quand il 
avance et de Johnston lorsqu'il recule, car le diable lui-mthne se ferait battre , 
s'il les attaquait dans ces conditions 

33. Senate Doc. as above, vol. 1, p. 337. 

34. Senate Doc. as above, vol. 1, p. 344. 

35. Senate Doc. as above, vol. 1, p. 404. 

36. Jones, Life , p. 32. 

37. Jones, Life , p. 54. 

38. Jones, Life, p. 54. 

39. Jones, Life , p. 56. 

40. Jones, Life , p. 57. 

41. Mrs. Davis, vol. I, p. 413. 

42. White, p. 47. 

43. White, p. 48. 

44. C. C. Chesney, A Military View of the Recent Campaigns in Vir¬ 
ginia and Maryland, p. 50. 

45. R. E. L., p. 13. 

46. Jones, Life, p. 84. 

47. Jones, Life, p. 92. 

48. Jones, Life, p. 113. 

49. Mason, p. 58. 

50. Jones, Life, p. 116. 

51. Jones, Life, p. 105. 

52. Reports of Committees, 36th Congress, First Session, no. 278, p. 42. 

53. R. E. L., p. 19. 

54. Ed. Keyes, Fifty Years' Observation of Men and Events, p. 204. 

55. Colonel Venable, in Battles and Leaders , vol. iv, p. 242. 

56. White, p. 31. 

57. White, p. 32. 

58. Mason, p. 381. 

59 - Jones, Life, p. 71. 

60. J. S. Wise, The End of an Era, p. 342. 

61. Jones, Life, p. 135. 


NOTES 


289 


CHAPTER II 

1. J. K. Hosmer, The Appeal to Arms, p. 29. 

2. Long, p. 27. 

3. Long, p. 29. 

4. U. S., vol. hi, p. 413. 

5. Jones, Life, p. 437. 

6. Mrs. Pickett, in Lippincott's Magazine, vol. 79, p. 52. 

7. Jones, Life, p. 118. 

8. F. Lee, p. 84. 

9. To Reverdy Johnson, F. Lee, p. 85. 

10. Ibid. 

11. Long, p. 92. 

12. Long, p. 94. 

13. E. Townsend, Anecdotes of the Civil War, p. 29. 

14. F. Lee, p. 94. 

15. Jones, Life, p. 162. 

16. Senator Culberson calls my attention to another error in Townsend’s 
narrative. He says Lee was “on leave” at Arlington. Investigation of the 
War Office records does not bear out this statement, but shows rather that 
he was awaiting orders. 

17. F. Lee, p. 88. 

18. Grandson of Rawle to Deering. in J. R. Deering, Lee and his Cause, 
P- 37 - 

19. See General J. W. Latta’s pamphlet, Was Secession taught at West 
Point ? Also the Century Magazine for August, 1909. 

20. William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of 
America, 1825, p. 289. 

21. Works, Sparks, vol. ix, p. 119. 

22. Jones, Life, p. 121. 

23. Reports of House Committees, 39th Congress, vol. 11, pt. 11, p. 136. 

24. Jones, Life, p. 130. 

25. Jones, Life, p. 125. 

26. Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox, p. 29. 

27. Page 19. 

28. Outlook, vol. 74, p. 888. 

29. Letter in Jones, Rem., p. 218. 

30. 0 . R., vol. 96, p. 1230. 

31. John B. Gordon, Reminiscences of the Civil War, p. 434. 

32. See Rhodes, U. S., vol. v, p. 71. 

33. To Gilman, December, i860, in Rhodes, U. S., vol. Ill, p. 161. 

34. R. E. L., p. 168. 


290 


NOTES 


35. R. E. L., p. 306. 

36. 0 . R., vol. 129, p. 1012. 

37. Jones, Life , p. 83. 

38. New York Herald reporter, quoted in Avary, Dixie after the War, 
p. 71. 

39. Mixed Essays (New York, 1883), “ Falkland,” p. 170. 

40. Burke’s Works (Bohn ed.), vol. I, p. 467. 

41. Jones, Life , p. 132. 

42. 0 . R., vol. 6, p. 43. 

43. 0 . R ., vol. 31, p. 1086. 

44. Long, p. 485. 

45. 0 . R., vol. 5, p. 192. 

46. 0 . R., vol. 5, p. 785. 

47. O. R., vol. 31, p. 556. 

48. Jones, Life , p. 376. 

49. R. E. L., p. 225. 

50. Quoted verbally in S. H. S. P,, vol. XI, p. 360. 

51. Jones, Life, p. 436. 

52. Quoted in 5 . H. S. P., vol, XI, p. 360. 

53. Jones, Life, p. 140. 


NOTES 


291 


CHAPTER III 

1. J. J. Craven, The Prison Life of Jefferson Davis, p. 283. 

2. Davis Memorial Volume, p. 387. 

3. Mrs. Davis, vol. 1, p. 580. 

4. S. H. S. P., vol. xxiv, p. 372. 

5. Mrs. Davis, in P. Butler’s Judah P. Benjamin , p. 332. 

6. Mrs. Davis, vol. 1, p. 356. 

7. Mrs. Davis, vol. 11, p. 163. 

8. Mrs. Davis, vol. II, p. 163. 

9. Pollard, Davis , p. 126; also Mrs. J. Chesnut, A Diary from Dixie,, 
p. 318. 

10. Pollard, Davis, p. 222. 

11. Mrs. Davis, vol. II, p. 155. 

12. Mrs. Davis, vol. 1, p. 178. 

13. Mrs. Davis, vol. 1, p. 78. 

14. Quoted in Rhodes, U. S., vol. Ill, p. 459. 

15. Jones, Diary, vol. 11, p. 205. 

16. Davis Memorial Volume, p. 41. 

17. Pollard, Davis, p. 231. 

18. O. R., vol. 40, p. 726. 

19. 0 . R., vol. 28, p. 600. 

20. 0 . R., vol. 31, p. 1029. 

21. Ibid. 

22. 0 . R., vol. 40, p. 810. 

23. Story of the Civil War, vol. I, p. 131. 

24. Battles and Leaders, vol. ill, p. 711. 

25. O. R., vol. 26, p. 1083. 

26. Mrs. Davis, vol. II, p. 393. 

27. Cecil Battine, The Crisis of the Confederacy, p. no. 

28. Henderson, vol. II, p. 601. 

29. O. R., vol. 108, p. 752. 

30. 0 . R., vol. 108, p. 741. 

31. Meigs, in Long, p. 44. 

32. Rise and Fall, vol. II, p. 133. . 

33. 0 . R., vol. 14, p. 635. 

34. 0 . R., vol. 28, p. 619. 

35. John J. Craven, The Prison Life of Jefferson Davis, p. 106. 

36. 0 . R., vol. 28, p. 600. 

37. 0 . R., vol. 45, p. 881. 

38. Long, p. 587. 

39. 0 . R., vol. 28, p. 644. 


292 


NOTES 


40. 0 . R., vol. 129, p. 247. 

41. 0 . R ., vol. 96, p. 1256. 

42. 0 . R., vol. 89, p. 1213. 

43. Ibid. 

44. Jones, Life, p. 152. 

45. John J. Craven, The Prison Life of Jefferson Davis, p. 322. 

46. Rise and Fall, vol. 11, p. 152. 

47. Diary , vol. 1, p. 121. 

48. Mrs. Davis, vol. 11, p. 320. 

49. 0 . R., vol. 28, p. 634. 

50. Quoted in R. E. L., p. 53. 

51. Jones, Rem., p. 340. 

52. R. E. L., p. 220. 

53. R. E. L., p. 268. 

54. Long, p. 266. 

55. J. B. Gordon, Reminiscences of the Civil War, p. 393. 

56. Examiner, August 5, 1863. 

57. Quoted in Mrs. Chesnut, A Diary from Dixie, p. 162. 

58. Diary, p. 151. 

59. 0 . R., vol. no, p. 808. 

60. Quoted in Pollard, Davis, p. 446. 

61. Diary, January 1, 1865. 

62. A. B. Hart, Essays on American Government, p. 283. 

63. A Diary from Dixie, p. 108. 

64. Diary, vol. 1, p. 189. 

65. Diary, January 1, 1865. 

66. A Diary from Dixie, p. 108. 

67. Cf. Southern Review, July, 1867. 

68. New York Tribune, April 14, i860, in Rhodes, U. S. 

69. Mrs. Davis, vol. I, p. 191. 

70. Davis Memorial Volume, p. 205. 

71. Mrs. Davis, vol. II, p. 163. 

72. Mrs. Davis, vol. 11, p. 923. 

73. Pollard, Davis, p. 437. 

74. 0 . R., vol. 96, p. 1199. 

75. R. E. L., p. 287. 

76. Davis, in .S. H. S. P., vol. 17, p. 372. 


NOTES 


293 


CHAPTER IV 

1. Jones, Life, p. 135. Differently worded in R. E. L., p. 28. 

2. Quoted in Jones, Life , p. 136. 

3. C. C. Greville, Journals of the Reign of Queen Victoria (Am. ed.), 
vol. 1, p. 509. 

4. Saunders, in R. E. L., p. 231. 

5. F. Lee, p. 408. 

6. Reports of Committees, 39th Congress, vol. II, pt. II, p. 129. 

7. See O. R., vol. 120, pp. 1010, 1018. 

8. O. R ., vol. 13, p. 936. 

9. 0 . R., vol. 14, p. 636. 

10. Jones, Life , p. 292. 

11. 0 . R ., vol. 60, p. 1279. 

12. Jones, Life , p. 226. 

13. Jones, Life , p. 331. 

14. O. R., vol. 40, p. 687. 

15. 0 . R ., vol. 96, p. 1143. 

16. G. C. Eggleston, A Rebel's Recollections , p. 214. 

17. Jones, Diary , vol. 1, p. 135. 

18. 0 . R., cited in J. C. Schwab, The Confederate States of America, 
p. 262. 

19. 0 . R., in Schwab, p. 92. 

20. 0 . R., vol. 129, p. 257. 

21. Pollard. 

22. Quoted by General Mosby, in S. H. S. P., vol. xxvn, p. 317. 

23. Jones, Life, p. 279. 

24. Correspondance de Napoleon , vol. xvi, p. 560. 

25. Jones, Life, p. 227. 

26. 0 . R., vol. 129, p. 1012. 

27. In Richmond Examiner, February 16, 1865. 

28. Ibid. 

29. Richmond Examiner, January 5, 1865. 

30. Pollard, L. C., p. 655. 

31. January 1, 1865. 

32. Sherman, Memoirs , vol. II, p. 224. 

33. April 21, 1887. 

34. See page 30. 

35. Pollard, L. C ., p. 655. 

36. Pollard, L. C., p. 429. 

37. Ibid. 

38. Quoted in Jones, Rem., p. 341. 


294 


NOTES 


39. 0 . R., vol. 19, p. 523. 

40. Volume xi, p. 523. 

41. Galaxy, vol. xn, p. 628. 

42. Jones, Life, p. 84. 

43. Cited in Cooke, p. 476. 

44. J. Scheibert, Der Burgerkrieg in den nordamerikanischen Staaten, 
P* 39« 

45. 0 . R. t vol. 108, p. 738. 

46. Long, p. 454. 

47. Towards the end of the war disaffected persons in the South began 
to see the prospect more clearly. The Augusta Chronicle for March 3, 1864, 
copies from the Richmond Whig the following statement of principles of 
the peace party in Georgia: “ It is contended that two rival Confederacies, 
each with a standing army, cannot exist side by side on this continent; 
that constant wars will occur and one eventually absorb the other. It is 
contended that a sectionally consolidated South will necessitate a similarly 
consolidated North, and that the two armed powers, acting and reacting 
upon each other, will produce endless strife and bloodshed.” 

48. Pollard, Davis , p. 426. 

49. Jones, Life , p. 121. 

50. Ibid. 

51. 0 . R., vol. 6, p. 350. 

52. Bishop Wilmer, in Memorial Address , printed in Jones, Life , p. 438. 

53. O. R., vol. 45, p. 880. 

54. Jones, Life, p. 249. 

55. O. R., vol 99, p. 1270. 

56. A Diary from Dixie , p. 373. 

57* R* Ek L., p. 65. 

58. Collyar, in The Confederate Veteran , vol. I, p. 324. 

59. S. H. S. P., vol. iv, p. 309. 

60. New York Herald reporter in M. L. Avary, Dixie after the War, p. 71. 

61. Quoted by Mrs. Roger A Pryor, Reminiscences of War and Peace , 
P* 358. 

62. C. F. Adams, The Confederacy and the Transvaal. 

63. J. S. Wise, The End of an Era, p. 344. 

64. Jones, Life, p. 372. 

65. R. E. L., p. 163. 

66. R. E. L., p. 410. 

67. Jones, Life, p. 387. 

68. E. L. Childe, Life and Campaigns of General Lee (trans. from 
French), p. 331. 


NOTES 


295 


CHAPTER V 

1. General Palfrey, in M. H. S. of M., vol. I, p. 220. 

2. 0 . R., vol. 17, p. 919. 

3. To Northrop, 0 . R., vol. 60, p. 1065. 

4. Marshall, in R. E. L., p. 119. 

5. Quoted in F. Lee, p. 364. 

6. O. R., vol. 48, p. 408. 

7. O. R., vol. 28, p. 722. 

8. Mangold, in S. H. S. P ., vol. II, p. 65. 

9. S. H. S. P., vol. xvii, p. 37. 

10. O. R., vol. 108, p. 994. 

11. Before Committee on the Conduct of the War, quoted in Jone9, 
Rem., p. 28. 

12. Long, p. 166 (from diary). 

13. Scheibert, Der Biirgerkrieg in den nordamerikanischen Staaten, p. 42. 

14. 0 . R ., vol. 2, p. 828. 

15. Diary of Cobb, in S. H. S. P., vol. xxvm, p. 295. 

16. 0 . R., vol. 29, p. 722. 

17. As to brutality, Lee is reported to have said to a soldier who was 
abusing some captured negroes: “If I ever hear of your mistreating a 
prisoner again, be he as black as Erebus, I will hang you to the nearest 
tree.” Judge D. G. Tyler, Lee Birthday Address, 1911, p. 6. But the naked 
energy of this phraseology does not sound like Lee. 

18. O. R., vol. 49, p. 807. 

19. O. R., vol. 40, p. 844. 

20. O. R., vol. 10, p. 303. 

21. G. M. Sorrel, Recollections of a Confederate Staff Officer , p. 279. 

22. O. R., vol. 89, p. 1268. 

23. O. R., vol. 96, p. 1276. 

24. Battles and Leaders , vol. II, p. 666. 

25. O. R., vol. 40, p. 792. 

26. S. H. S. P. t vol. 11, p. 65. 

27. McCabe, p. 602. 

28. D. H. Maury, Recollections of a Virginian in the Mexican , Indian , 
and Civil Wars, p. 238. 

29. In Harper's Magazine, February, 1911. 

30. Jones, Life, p. 455. 

31. S. H. S. P., vol. xxiii, p. 208. 

32. G. C. Eggleston, A Rebel's Recollections , p. 52. 

33. 0 . R., vol. 40, p. 820. 

34. R. Stiles, Four Years under Marse Robert , p. 20. 


296 


NOTES 


35. Long, p. 102. 

36. 0 . R., vol. 108, p. 994. 

37. Ibid. 

38. Jones, Rem., p. 185. 

39. O. R., vol. 2, p. 837. 

40. R. Stiles, Four Years under Marse Robert, p. 264. 

41. 0 . R., vol. 5, p. 868. 

42. G. M. Sorrel, Recollections of a Confederate Staff Officer, p. 88. 

, 43 - Jones, Life, p. 267. 

44. Long, p. 229. 

45. Long, p. 278. 

46. Long, p. 301. 

47. O. R., vol. 108, p. 994. 

48. Henderson, vol. 1, p. 537. 

49. Battles and Leaders, vol. iv, p. 240. 

50. Ibid. 

51. September 16. 

52. Mrs. Pickett, in Lippincott's Mazagine, vol. lxxix, p. 55. 

53. Jones, Rem., p. 162. 

54. Ibid. 

55. G. M. Sorrel. Recollections of a Confederate Staff Officer, p. 182. 

56. Cooke, p. 368. 

57. Jones, Rem., p. 232. 

58. McCormick, in the Outlook, vol. lvi, p. 684. 

59. Jones, Rem., p. 237. 

60. O. R., vol. 108, p.’ 994. 

61. Long, p. 227. 

62. W. H. Taylor, Four Years with General Lee, p. 141. 

63. Ibid. 

64. Confederate Veteran, vol. vi, p. 12. 

65. A. L. Fremantle, Three Months in the Southern States, p. 276. 

66. Quoted in G. M. Sorrel, Recollections of a Confederate Staff Officer, 
P- 307 . 

67. E. P. Alexander, Military Memoirs of a Confederate, p. 154. 

68. 0 . R., vol. 6, p. 366. 

69. 0 . R., vol. 26, p. 847. 

70. 0 . R., vol. 69, p. 896. 

71. Long, p. 626. 

72. G. C. Eggleston, A Rebels Recollections, p. 145. Mr. Allen C. Red¬ 
wood writes me of similar impressions: “I cannot recollect ever having 
heard the men cheer General Lee. They would stand quietly and as he 
passed by their lines take off their hats, and stand looking at him with the 
greatest veneration.” 


NOTES 


297 


73. Examiner , August 19, 1864. 

74. Charles Marshall, quoted in R. E. L., p. 138. 

75. E. P. Alexander, Military Memoirs of a Confederate , p. 504. 

76. Napier, A History of the Peninsula War, vol. v, p. 250. 

77. Jones, Rem., p. 161. 

78. 0 . R., vol. 28, p. 597. 

79. To Hood, in Jones, Life, p. 247. 

80. Jones, Rem., p. 400. 


i 


298 


NOTES 


CHAPTER VI 

1. Quoted in Cooke, p. 353. 

2. Henderson, vol. 11, p. 88. 

3. Dabney, vol. 1, p. 62. 

4. Mrs. Jackson, p. 47. 

5. Mrs. Jackson, p. 70. 

6. Mrs. Jackson, p. 57. 

7. E. P. Allan, Life and Letters of M. J. Preston , p. 83. 

8. Dabney, vol. 11, p. 521. 

9. Dabney, vol. 11, p. 522. 

10. Mrs. Jackson, p. 43. 

11. Cooke, p. 248. 

12. Cooke, p. 355. 

13. Mrs. Jackson, p. 54. 

14. F. Lee, p. 142. 

15. Henderson, vol. 1, p. 46. 

16. E. P. Allan, Life and Letters of M. J. Preston , p. 80. 

17. Cooke, p. 275. 

18. Mrs. Jackson, p. 68. 

19. Mrs. Jackson, p. 63. 

20. Mrs. Jackson, p. 75. 

21. Mrs. Jackson, p. 69. 

22. Mrs. Jackson, p. 249. 

23. 0 . R., vol. 2, 825. 

24. Mrs. Jackson, p. 237. 

25. Dabney, vol. 11, p. 346. 

26. Mrs. Jackson, p. 310. 

27. McGuire, in Henderson, vol. II, p. 401. 

28. Dabney, vol. 11, p. 130. 

29. Henderson, vol. 11, p. 589. 

30. To Mrs. Jackson, in Dabney, vol. I, p. 213. 

31. Jones, Life , p. 71. 

32. McGuire, in Mrs. Jackson, p. 452. 

33. Jones, Life , p. 240. 

34. Dabney, vol. 11, p. 637. 

35. Dabney, vol. 1, p. 335. 

36. Mrs. Jackson, p. 313. 

37. Dabney, in Henderson, vol. II, p. 95. 

38. Cooke, p. 212. 

39. Jackson’s constant devotion to the study of everything connected 
with Napoleon gives a certain plausibility to Grasset’s assertion ( Guerre de 


NOTES 


299 

la Secession, vol. 11, p. 95) that this saying was taken from one of Kltber's in 
regard to the great emperor. 

40. R. E. L., p. 94. 

41. Mrs. Jackson, p. 394. 

42. Lee to Davis, 0 . R ., vol. 27, p. 643. 

43. G. C. Eggleston, A Rebel's Recollections, p. 153. 

44. O. R., vol. 17, p. 910. 

45. Jones, Life, p. 237. 

46. Lawley, in Henderson, vol. II, p. 58. 

47. R. E. L.,p. 94. 

48. Dabney, vol. 11, p. 507. 

49. Cooke, p. 440. 

50. O. R., vol. 18, p. 926. 

51. 0 . R., vol. 18, p. 878. 

52. O. R., vol. 18, p. 919. 

53. Henderson, vol. 11, p. 142. 

54. 0 . R., vol. 31, p. 1044. 

55. 0 . R ., vol. 2, p. 814. 

56. D. H. Hill, in Battles and Leaders, vol. 11, p. 390. 

57. Ibid. 

58. 0 . R., vol. 40, p. 647. 

59. Mrs. Jackson, p. 234. 

60. Henderson, vol. 1, p. 197. 

61. Quoted in Mrs. Jackson, p. 204.- 

62. Cooke, p. 459. 

63. McGuire, in Henderson, vol. II, p. 71. 

64. F. Lee, p. 142. 

65. Dabney, letter in Henderson, vol. II, p. 88. 

66. Cooke, p. 205 (not verbal). 

67. Henderson, vol. 11, p. 453. 

68. Cooke, p. 387. 

69. E. P. Alexander, Memoirs of a Confederate, p. 181. 

70. 0 . R. } vol. 28, p. 733. 

71. D. H. Maury, Recollections of a Virginian, p. 72. 

72. Ante, p. 140. 

73. 0 . R., vol. 31, p. 1033. 

74. Jones, Life, p. 232. 

75. H. von Borcke, Memoirs of the Confederate War for Independence , 
vol. 11, p. 260. 

76. Henderson, vol. 11, p. 573. 

77. Henderson, vol. 11, p. 582. 

78. Jones, Life, p. 236. 

79. Mrs. Jackson, p. 71. 


300 


NOTES 


CHAPTER VII 


1. Jones, Life , p. 242. 

2. J. Scheibert, Der Biirgerkrieg in den nordamerikanischen Staaten, 
p. 39 - 

3. R. E. L., p. 386. 

4. Long, p. 240. 

5. Wood and Edmunds, p. 137. 

6. In Battles and Leaders vol. 11, p. 366. 

7. Jones, Life, p. 53. 

8. R. E. L., p. 89. 

9. Jones, Life, p. 53. 

10. Jones, Life, p. 208. 

11. Scheibert, Der Biirgerkrieg in den nordamerikanischen Staaten , 
P- 39 . 

12. S. H . S. P., vol. xvii, p. 242. 

13. H. von Borcke, Memoirs of the Confererate War for Independence, 
vol. 11, p. 197. 

14. Jones, Rem., p. 164. 

15. J. B. Gordon, Reminiscences of the Civil War, p. 430. 

16. Grade’s son, in Confederate Veteran, vol. v, p. 432. 

17. Jones, Rem., p. 182. 

18. J. B. Gordon, Reminiscences of the Civil War, p. 278, and many other 
authorities. 

19. J. Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox, p. 384. 

20. S. H. S. P., vol. v, p. 92. 

21. In Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox, p. 357. 

22. Harper's, February, 1911. 

23. See M. H. S. of M., vol. vi, p. 471. 

24. Henderson, vol. 11, p. 323. 

25. A. L. Fremantle, Three Months in the Southern States, p. 254. 

26. E. P. Alexander, Memoirs of a Confederate, p. 356. 

27. Fremantle, Three Months in the Southern States, p. 268. 

28. Ibid. 

29. Ibid. 

30. In Galaxy, vol. XI, p. 509. 

31. J. B. Gordon, Reminiscences of the Civil War, p. 279. 

32. S. H. S. P., vol. xxxii, p. 201. 

33. S. H. S. P., vol. viii, p. 565. 

34. Thomas Nelson Page, Robert E. Lee the Southerner , p. 206. 

35. Memorial Address, in Mason, p. 361. 

36. G. C. Eggleston, A Rebel's Recollections , p. 147. 


NOTES 


301 


37. Jones, Life , p. 380. 

38. Colonel Venable, Memorial Address , in Jones, Lt/g, p. 369. 

39. Ibid. 

40. General Horace Porter, in Battles and Leaders , vol. iv, p. 743. 


302 


NOTES 


CHAPTER VIII 

1. Letters (1894 edition), vol. 11, p. 200. 

2. J. C. Ropes, The Story of the Civil War, vol. 11, p. 158. 

3. Jones, Rem., p. 258. 

4. Quoted in Jones, Rem., p. 223. 

5. Quoted in Jones, Rem., p. 50. 

6. Life, p. 381. 

7. E. A. Pollard, A Southern History of the War, vol. I, p. 168. 

8. E. A. Pollard, A Southern History of the War, vol. 1, p. 354. 

9. H. D. Longstreet, Lee and Longstreet at High Tide, p. 83. 

10. Battles and Leaders, vol. ill, p. 350. 

11. S. H. S. P., vol. v, p. 61. 

12. S. H. S. P., vol. v, p. 72. 

13. Battles and Leaders, vol. Ill, p. 349. 

14. Jones, Rem., p. 266. 

15. Adam Badeau, Military History of U. S. Grant, vol. II, p. 524. 

16. Badeau, vol. 11, p. 166. 

17. Badeau, vol. 11, p. 220. 

18. Badeau, vol. 11, p. 227. 

19. Badeau, vol. 11, p. 132. 

20. Colonel T. Lyman, in M. II. S. of M., vol. ill, p. 171. 

21. J. R. Young, Around the World with General Grant, vol. II, 
P- 459 - 

22. J. G. Wilson, General Grant, p. 367. 

23. Criticism, taking, in a more or less modified form, the view of 
Badeau and Grant, is, of course, still often met with. Colonel T. L. 
Livermore’s clear and forcible discussions in the volumes of the Military 
Historical Society of Massachusetts are perhaps the best examples of it. 
Colonel Livermore, in summing up the Appomattox Campaign, says: 
“ No fault appears in Grant’s generalship. To Lee’s failure to make timely 
retreat from Petersburg and Richmond, and perhaps his delay in ordering 
supplies to Amelia Court House, must be attributed his failure to reach the 
Roanoke.” (Vol. vi, p. 501.) It may be worth while to refer here to the 
very remarkable anecdote told by the Reverend Dr. McKim {A Soldier's 
Recollections, p. 258) of Grant’s having discovered in a waste-basket a 
sketch of Lee’s plan of retreat from Petersburg. The story seems well 
authenticated, but is rather difficult to accept. 

24. O. R., vol. 60, p. 1185. 

25. R. E. L., p. 416. 

26. Jones, Life, p. 152. 

27. Quoted in Sainte-Beuve, Nouveaux Lundis, vol. xm, p. 96. 


NOTES 


303 


28. A. Doubleday, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, p. 158. 

29. Page 175. 

30. J. C. Ropes, The Army under Pope, p. m. 

31. J. C. Ropes, The Story of the Civil War, vol. 11, p. 468. 

32. Colonel W. R. Livermore, Gettysburg, Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, 
1910, p. 232. 

33. J. C. Ropes, The Story of the Civil War, vol. 11, p. 352. 

34. Battles and Leaders, vol. ill, p. 293. 

35. J. C. Ropes, The Story of the Civil War, vol. 11, p. 454. 

36. T. A. Dodge, A Bird's-Eye View of Our Civil War, p. 218. 

37. Battles and Leaders, vol. iv, p. 162. 

38. W. R. Livermore, Lee's Conduct of the Wilderness Campaign , Am, 
Hist. Assoc. Papers, 1910, p. 236. 

39. Wilderness Campaign, p. 233. 

40. Wilderness Campaign, p. 243. 

41. R. M. Bache, Life of Meade, p. 549. 

42. Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceed., 1910, p. 230. 

43. J. C. Ropes, The Army Under Pope, p. 35. 

44. T. Roosevelt, Gouverneur Morris, p. 52. 

45. T. Roosevelt, Thomas H. Benton, p. 38. 

46. Field Marshal Viscount Wolseley, Story of a Soldier's Life , vol. I, 
P- 135 - 

47. Cecil Battine, The Crisis of the Confederacy, p. 19. 

48. Battine, p. 322. 

49. Battine, p. 207. 

50. Wood and Edmunds, p. 242. 

51. G. F. R. Henderson, The Science of War, p. 305. 

52. Henderson, Science of War, p. 330. 

53. Henderson, Jackson, vol. 11, p. 231. 

54. The Wilderness Campaign, p. 124. 

55. Cecil Battine, The Crisis of the Confederacy, p. 380. 

56. G. F. R. Henderson, The Science of War, p. 314. 

57. Cecil Battine, The Crisis of the Confederacy, p. 114. 

58. American Historical Association, Annual Report, 1910, p. 246. . 

59. H. E. Shepherd, Life of R. E. Lee, p. 117. 

60. E. P. Alexander, Military Memoirs of a Confederate, p. no. 

61. 0 . R., vol. 14, p. 590. 

62. 0 . R., vol. 45, p. 868. 

63. W. Allan, The Army of Northern Virginia in 1862, p. 200. 

64. Correspondance de NapoUon, vol. xvm, p. 218. 

65. G. F. R. Henderson, The Science of War, p. 4. It is interesting to 
compare with this remark of Henderson, Scheibert’s assertion that Lee in 
9ome points anticipated the later tactics of the Prussian army. 


304 


NOTES 


66 . F. Lee, quoted by Colonel W. R. Livermore, Wilderness Campaign , 
p* 239* 

67. Sir E. B. Hamley, The Operations of War, p. 95. 

68. Field Marshal Viscount Wolseley, The Decline and Fall of Napoleon t 
p. 30. 

69. General W. F. Smith in M. H. S. of M., vol. Ill, p. 115. 

70. Vol. 1, p. 294. 

71. Rise of Wellington, p. 186. 


NOTES 


305 


CHAPTER IX 

1. Southern Magazine, vol. xv, p. 604. 

2. Quoted in Nation, vol. xliv, p. 322. 

3. Personal Memoirs, vol. 11, p. 184. 

4. A Diary from Dixie, p. 94. 

5. Long, p. 433. 

6 . Ibid. 

7. Mrs. Davis, vol. 11, p. 207. 

8. Cooke, p. 206. 

9. G. M. Sorrel, Recollections of a Confederate Staff Officer, p. 74. 

10. Jones, Life, p. 296. 

n. Charleston Courier, March 10, 1864. 

12. Mrs. Guild, in Confederate Veteran, vol. VI, p. 12. 

13. W. P. Johnston, in R. E. L., p. 315. 

14. Long, p. 37. 

15. Jones, Life, p. 205. 

16. R. E. L., p. 201. 

17. R. E. L., p. 395. 

18. A Diary from Dixie, p. 94. 

19. R. E. L., p. 380. 

20. Collyar, in Confederate Veteran, vol. I, p. 265. 

21. Long, p. 35. 

22. W. P. Johnston, in R. E. L., p. 315. 

23. Daves, in S. H. S. P., vol. xxvi, p. 119. I have already quoted in 
different connections remarks similar to this. The authenticity of some of 
them has been doubted and perhaps with reason. But there are so many 
instances that Lee’s rather peculiar habit of addressing himself to minor 
subordinates cannot be questioned. Judge Garnett (5. H. S. P., vol. 
xxviii, p. no) suggests an interesting explanation. “And here for the first 
time I experienced what I afterwards learned was almost a habit with 
General Lee — to think aloud. He murmured to himself as if addressing 
me; ‘Well, Captain, what shall we do?’ To which inquiry I am pleased to 
say I had sense enough to make no reply, and, indeed, to appear as if I had 
not heard it.” Again Judge Garnett says that when a message was brought 
to the general during the Wilderness fighting and another at Five Forks, 
“I heard his deep bass voice ask, ‘Well, Captain, what shall we do?’ ” 
Absence of mind may easily have played a part here; but I think it quite 
consonant with all we know of Lee that he should ask a subordinate’s 
opinion and should even take a genuine interest in it. 

24. Hunt, in Long, p. 70. 

25. Battles and Leaders, vol. 1, p. 226. 


NOTES 


306 

26. Battles and Leaders, vol. I, p. 259. 

27. Eveleth, in Long, p. 35. 

28. In Jones, Life , p. 36. 

29. Mason, p. 24. 

30. Wise, quoted in Battles and Leaders , vol. 11, p. 276. 

31. Jones, Life , p. 287. 

32. Jones, Life, p. 102. 

33. Jones, Rem., p. 213. 

34. Mason, p. 22. 

35. Mason, p. 23. 

36. Ibid. 

37. F. Lee, p. 66. 

38. Jones, Life, p. 42. 

39. R. E. L., p. 9. 

40. Jones, Life, p. 448. 

41. Jones, Life, p. 94. 

42. Jones, Life, p. 34. 

43. Jones, Life, p. 154. 

44- E* E. L., p. 15. 

45. Jones, Life, p. 286. 

46. Jones, Life, p. 91. 

47. Jones, Life, p. 90. 

48. R. E. L., p. 342. 

49. R. E. L., p. 324. 

50. Jones, Life, p. 99. 

51. Jones, Life, p. 300. 

52. R. E. L., p. 303. 

53. R. E. L., p. 140. 

54. R. E. L., p. 343. 

55. R. E. L., p. 374. 

56. R. E. L., p. 9. 

57. R. E. L., p. 405. 

58. R. E. L., p. 11. 

59. Jones, Life, p. 122. 

60. R. E. L., p. 325. 

61. Jones, Life, p. 35. 

62. Jones, Life, p. 84. 

63. It seems to me that I catch a wistful sense of the element of char¬ 
acter I am trying to suggest, without emphasizing it too much, in these 
words from an unpublished letter of Mrs. Lee: “I hope the Gen’l will be 
able to take a little rest. I think he rather prefers lonely rides among the 
mountains on his favourite grey." 

64. R. E. L., p. 88. 


NOTES 


307 


65. R.E.L., p.325. 

66. R. E. L., p. 266. 

67. R. E. L.,p. 6. 

68. Collyar, in Confederate Veteran, vol. i, p. 265. 

69. R. E. L., p. 193. 

70. R. E. L., p. 324. 

71. Jones, Life, p. 110. 


308 


NOTES 


CHAPTER X 


1. Jones, Rem., p. 214. 

2. Jones, Life, p. 117. 

3. H. Lee, Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department of the United 
States, new edition with a biography of the author by Robert E. Lee, p. 50. 

4. 0 . R., vol. 60, p. 117. 

5. Professor Joynes, in S. H. S. P., vol. xxvm, p. 246. 

6. Judge D. Gardner Tyler, in Address at William and Mary College, 
1911, p. 10. 

7. R. E. L., p. 248. 

8. Jones, Life , p. 35. 

9. R. E. L., p. 39. 

10. Battles and Leaders , vol. iv, p. 240. 

11. Ibid. 

12. W. H. Taylor, Four Years with General Lee , p. 16. 

13. McCormick, in Outlook , vol. lvi, p. 586. 

14. Jones, Life , p. 156. 

15. Collyar, in Confederate Veteran, vol. 1, p. 265. 

16. W. H. Taylor, Four Years with General Lee , p. 76. 

17. R. E. L., p. 263. 

18. R. E. L., p. 317. 

19. Ibid. 

20. Old Teacher, in Long, p. 28. 

21. R. E. L., p. 289. 

22. 0 . R., vol. 117, p. 843. 

23. Jones, Life, p. 307. 

24. D. Maury, Recollections of a Virginian, p. 239. 

25. Adam Badeau, Military History of U. S. Grant, vol. ill, p. 615. 

26. History of the United States (ed. 1876), vol. v, p. 389. 

27. Jones, Rem., p. 239. 

28. Jones, Rem., p. 288. 

29. Essays on Great Writers, p. 343. 

30. Jones, Life, p. 444. 

31. Professor Humphreys, in E. S. Joynes, Lee the College President , 
p. 23. 

32. Jones, Life, p. 57. 

33. Jones, Life, p. 81. 

34. Jones, Rem., p. 168. 

35. S. H. S. P., vol. xxv, p. 179. 

36. O. R., vol. 108, p. 1076. 

37 * R* E. L., p. 37* 


NOTES 


309 


38. Jones, Life, p. 150. 

39. Jones, Life , p. 423. 

40. J. W. Jones, Christ in the Camp , p. 79. 

41. In Long, p. 67. 

42. R. E. L., p. 317. 

43. Pendleton, in Southern Magazine , vol. xv, p. 605. 

44. J. W. Jones, Christ in the Camp, p. 59. 

45. Christ in the Camp, p. 60. 

46. Christ in the Camp, p. 79. 

47. B. H. Hill, in Jones, Rem., p. 283. 

48. Jones, Life, p. 144. 

49. Jones, Christ in the Camp, p. 50. 

50. Jones, Life , p. 468. 

51. Ibid. 

52. Jones, Rem., p. 196. 

53 - Ibid. 

54. Ibid. 

55. J- W. Jones, Christ in the Camp, p. 66. 

56. Jones, Rem., p. 323. 

57. 0 . R., vol. 60, p. 1150. 

58. Jones, Christ in the Camp, p. 79. 

59. Among the innumerable Lincoln anecdotes is this one told by 
General James F. Rusling, in his Men and Things I saw in the Civil War 
Days (p. 15). Lincoln said to him: “The fact is, in the very pinch of the 
campaign there, I went into my room one day and got down on my knees, 
and prayed Almighty God for victory at Gettysburg. I told Him that this 
was His country, and the war was His war, but that we really could n’t 
stand another Fredericksburg or Chancellorsville. And then and there I 
made a solemn vow with my Maker that if He would stand by you boys 
at Gettysburg, I would stand by Him.” 

60. R. E. L., p. 45. 

61. R. E. L., p. 108. 

62. J. W. Jones, Christ in the Camp, p. 60. 

63. Jones, Christ in the Camp, p. 52. 


3io 


NOTES 


CHAPTER XI 


1. R. E. L., p. 170. 

2. Collyar, in Confederate Veteran, vol. I, p. 263. 

3. Jones, Rem., p. 205. 

4. Jones, Rem., p. 273. 

5. Captain Ranson, in Harper's Magazine, February, 1911. 

6. Quoted in Cooke, p. 476. 

7. Jones, Rem., p. 274. 

8. Jones, Life, p. 396. 

9. Jones, Rem., p. 323. 

10. R. E. L., p. 289. 

11. Jones, Rem., p. 321. 

12. R. E. L., p. 276. 

13. John W. Daniel, in S. H. S. P., vol. XI, p. 363. 

14. Jones, Life, p. 454. 

15. Long, p. 233. Professor White (quoted in Bright Skies and Dark 
Shadows, by H. M. Field, p. 304) questions an anecdote similar to this, on 
account of the emphatic gesture, so unlike Lee. Professor White may be 
correct, but the independent report of two observers seems to deserve some 
credit. 

16. R. E. L., p. 334. 

17. Jones, Rem., p. 221. 

18. R. E. L., p. 351. 

19. R. E. L., p. 261. 

20. R. E. L., p. 348. 

21. R. E. L., p. 389. 

22. R. E. L., p. 367. 

23. R. E. L., p. 204. 

24. R, E. L., p. 386. 

25. Jones, Life, p. 445. 

26. Jones, Life, p. 389. 

27. Jones, Life, p. 445. 

28. R. E. L., p. 375. 

29. Jones, Life, p. 409. 

30. Jones, Life, p. 406. 

31. R. E. L., p. 335. 

32. To Ewell, in Jones, Life, p. 430. 

33. Jones, Life , p. 422. 

34. Professor E. S. Joynes, Lee the College President, p. 25. 

35. Kindly communicated to me by Mr. J. L. Campbell, Secretary of 
Washington and Lee University. 


NOTES 


3ii 


36. Professor Joynes, pp. 27, 28. 

37. Page 22. 

38. R. E. L., p. 316. 

39. Ibid. 

40. Jones, Life, p. 412. 

41. Professor Joynes, p. 33. 

42. Ibid. 

43. Ibid. 

44. Professor Joynes, p. 23. 

45. Collyar, in Confederate Veteran, vol. I, p. 265. 

46. Jones, Life, p. 422. 

47. Jones, Rem., p. 286. 

48. Jones, Life, p. 411. 

49. Professor Joynes, Lee the College President, p. 35. 

50. Thomas Nelson Page, Robert E. Lee, the Southerner, p. 276. 

51. R. E. L., p. 331. 

52. Jones, Life, p. 412. 

53. R. E. L., p. 296. 

54. Jones, Life, p. 411. 

55. Professor Joynes, p. 35. 

56. O. R., vol. 121, p. 536. 

57. M. L. Avary, Dixie after the War, p. 71. 

58. R. E. L., p. 189. 

59. Thomas Nelson Page, Robert E. Lee, the Southerner, p. 271. 


312 


NOTES 


APPENDIX 

1. Portraits Litteraires, vol. hi, p. 546. 

2. Sainte-Beuve gives no authority for this quotation from Macaulay 
and I have not been able to trace it exactly. Mr. Norris E. Pierson and 
other correspondents have pointed out to me passages somewhat similar 
in the essay on “History.” “Those are the best pictures and the best 
histories which exhibit such parts of the truth as most nearly produce the 
effect of the whole” (paragraph 16); and again, “Some events must be 
represented on a large scale, others diminished; the great majority will be 
lost in the dimness of the horizon; and a general idea of the joint effect will 
be given by a few slight touches” (paragraph 17). But Sainte-Beuve 
appears to be quoting literally, and if he is paraphrasing these passages in 
form, he really betrays them in sense. See Sainte-Beuve, Premier Lundis, 
vol. hi, p. 163. 

3. Nouveaux Lundis, vol. xm, p. 78. 

4. Boswell, vol. 1, p. 449 (American ed. 1807). 

5. History of England (Harper’s ed., 1853), vol. 1, p. 67. 

6. Memoires (ed. Hachette, 1884), vol. 111, p. 326. 

7. The History of the Rebellion (American ed., 1827), vol. I, p. 114. 

8. Causeries du Lundi, vol. ix, p. 229. 

9. Volume iv, p. 25. 


INDEX 



V 


INDEX 


Adams, C. F., 96; on Lee’s decision 
to leave the Union, 37. 

Alexander, General E. P., on Lee’s 
surrender, 122; concrete instance 
of Lee’s personal influence given 
by, 124; his description of Lee at 
Gettysburg, 155; on Lee after 
Chancellorsville, 162; his estimate 
of Lee’s generalship, 174; his ac¬ 
count of General Ives’s estimate 
of Lee before the war, 191. 

Allan, William, his estimate of Lee’s 
generalship, 174. 

Anderson, Charles, on Lee’s manner 
in society, 196. 

Anderson, General R. H., on Lee at 
Gettysburg, 160. 

Antietam, Lee at, 154* * 58 ; Lee on 
the Potomac after the battle of, 
161, 162. 

Army, Lee’s, devoted to its com¬ 
mander, 100; treated as a human 
body, 101, 102; discipline in, 103- 
109; the question of promotion in, 
109-112. 

Arnold, Matthew, quoted, 33 . 43 '. 
his essay on Falkland, a model of 
psychography, 269; on Macaulay, 
271. 

Ashby, General Turner, 146. 

Bache, R. M., his Life t of Meade 
quoted in commendation of Lee, 

184. .. 

Badeau, General Adam, 230; his es¬ 
timate of Lee’s generalship, 178, 
his charge of duplicity against 
Lee, 231,232. , 

Bancroft, George, on Washington s 
power of secrecy, 231. 

Battine, Captain Cecil, on the re¬ 
lation of Lee and Davis, 55 * criti¬ 


cises Lee, 186; on the Wilderness 
campaign, 187; his estimate of 
Lee’s character, 188. 

Battle, the commander’s place in, 
153; Lee’s conception of his duty 
and his place in, 153, 154; Lee’s 
courage and coolness in, 156-159. 
See Antietam, Gettysburg, etc. 
Beauregard, General P. G. T., in¬ 
dorsement by Davis on letter of, 
53; letter of Lee to, quoted, 204. 
Benjamin, Secretary, clash between 
Jackson and, 142. 

Berkeley, Sir William, governor of 
Virginia, undemocratic views of, 

7. 

Blair, Francis P., offers Lee the 
command of the United States 
Army, 28, 29. 

Bledsoe, Dr. A. T., letter of Lee to, 

150* I 5 I * . t 

Boissier, Gaston, his portrait ol 

Cicero, 272. 

Bragg, General Braxton, 67, 7 8, 
Breckinridge, General John C., on 
Jefferson Davis, 50. 

Brown, John, Lee’s connection with 
the affair of, 20, 26, 27. 

Buena Vista, Lee at, H> 12. 

Bull Run, 147 * H 8 * 181, 187* 204. 
Burke, Edmund, quoted, 43, 44 * 

Caesar, Julius, 21, 272. 

Campbell, J. L., Secretary of Wash- 
ington and Lee University, 31°- 
Cavour, Count Camillo di, 279. 
Chancellorsville, 61, 162; the re¬ 
sponsibility for, as between Lee 
and Jackson, 147-15 1 * Lee at, 
157, 160, 165, 166. 

Charleston Harbor, 45. 

Chesney, Colonel C. C., his testi* 






INDEX 


316 

mony to Lee’s efficiency as super¬ 
intendent of the West Point 
Academy, 17. 

Chesnut, Mrs. J., quoted, 66, 69, 95, 
201, 203, 217; on Lee’s manner, 
197, 198; cited, 281. 

Chesterfield, Lord, his theory that 
attention is the most exquisite 
element of courtesy, 119. 

Clarendon, Earl of, 269, 270, 278. 

Collyar, J. B., on Lee’s manner, 202; 
on Lee’s horse, Traveler, 220; on 
Lee’s sadness after the war, 247. 

Confederate Congress, criticised by 
Lee, 82; votes to allow slaves 
to serve as soldiers, 83. 

Confederate Government, Lee’s at¬ 
titude of non-interference with, 
75, 84-92; its possible future, had 
it been victorious, 90, 91, 294. 

Cooke, John Esten, 271; on Lee’s 
memory, 118; on Jackson’s love of 
action, 131. 

Craven, John J., 49, 59. 

Culberson, Senator, 289. 

Custis, Miss, marries Lee, 9. See 
Lee, Mrs. Robert E. 

Dabney, R. L., on Jackson, 129,142. 

Davis, Jefferson, and Lee, the most 
prominent figures of the Confeder¬ 
acy, 48; material for the study of 
his character, 48; his The Rise and 
Fall of the Confederate Government, 
unsatisfactory, 48; his oratory, 
49; his character, 49-51; his rela¬ 
tions to the officers of the Confed¬ 
erate Army, 51-53; his self-confi¬ 
dence, 51, 55; his confidence and 
affection retained by Lee, 53, 63, 
64; Lee’s solicitude for, and defer¬ 
ence to, 53-58, 61; conflicts of 
opinion between Lee and, 58-61; 
snubs Lee, 61-63; esteemed and 
admired by Lee, 65, 66; change 
of feeling toward, as the war pro¬ 
gressed, 66, 67; over-parted in his 
r 61 e, 67-70; his cabinet, 68, 69; 


appoints Lee commander-in-chief 
of Confederate armies, 71, 72; re¬ 
mained in harmony with Lee to 
the end, 72, 73; quoted on Lee’s 
loyalty to the Confederacy, 86; 
quoted on the destitution of the 
army, 102; on Lee’s avoidance of 
seeming harshness, 103; anecdote 
of Lee and, 159; the captivity of, 
248, 249. 

Davis, Mrs. Jefferson (Varina How¬ 
ell), her Life of her husband, 48; 
quoted, 50, 52, 55, 63, 64, 69, 70, 
71, 198. 

Davis, Reuben, on Jefferson Davis, 

7°. 

Democracy, Sedgwick’s definition 
of, 232. 

Demosthenes, 47. 

Desertion, Lee advocated strict 
punishment for, 105. 

Discipline in Lee’s army, 103-109. 

Dodge, Colonel T. A., on Lee’s Wil¬ 
derness campaign, 183. 

Doubleday, Abner, on the battle of 
Gettysburg, 181. 

Early, General J. A., 65; Lee’s 
method of dismissing, 107; advice 
of Lee to, 252. 

Edmunds, J. E. See Wood. 

Education, Lee’s, 7, 8, 221; Lee’s 
ideas on, 221, 261; Lee’s work and 
plans in, at Washington College, 
257-259. 

Eggleston, George Cary, 271; his 
view of the original quality of 
Lee’s soldiers, 103; on the rever¬ 
ence in which Lee was held by his 
soldiers, 124; on Lee just before 
his surrender, 167. 

Emerson, R. W., on Napoleon, 195. 

English critics of Lee, 185-188. 

Ewell, General Richard S., 144. 

Favoritism, Lee not accused of, no. 

Finances, suggestions of Lee with 
regard to, 80. 





INDEX 


3 i 7 


FitzGerald, Edward, quoted, 170, 
I7I » 

Five Forks, 108. 

Floyd, General John B., animosities 
of, 113. 

Forsythe, John, on Jefferson Davis, 
67. 

Fredericksburg, 148; Lee at, 154, 
^ 156. 

Fremantle, A. L., on Lee's appear¬ 
ance in battle, 162; Southern in 
his sympathies, 185. 

Gaines’s Mill, 148. 

Gardiner, S. R., how far impartial, 
270. 

Garnett, Judge, on Lee’s habit of 
thinking aloud, 305. 

Gettysburg, 61, 115; letter of Lee 
written a month after, 56, 57; 
conduct of Longstreet at, 106, 
160, 161, 177; letter of Lee to 
Pickett after, 113; Lee trusted by 
his army after, 121; Lee’s address 
to his army after, 125; Lee at, 155, 
160, 161, 165; Longstreet on Lee 
at, 160, 177; Lee condemned by 
some, but not all, critics for fight¬ 
ing at, 181-183; English critics on, 
186. 

Gordon, General J. B., statement 
by, of Lee’s feeling about Davis, 
65; on Lee’s feeling about the 
Confederate Congress, 96; his de¬ 
scription of Lee and his soldiers 
in battle, 164; his estimate of 
Lee’s generalship, 175. 

Gracie, General Archibald, 159. 

Grant, U. S., 21, 85, 118, 183; on 
Davis, 55; Lee’s correspondence 
with, as to recaptured slaves, 77; 
on Lee, as being difficult of access 
to subordinates, 115, 196; and 
Lee, compared, 168, 169; his esti¬ 
mate of Lee’s generalship, 179; 
Lee’s estimate of the generalship 
of, 179, 252; member of university 
faculty rebuked by Lee for disre¬ 


spect toward, 226; anecdote of, 
227; on Lee’s probable influence 
in bringing about reconciliation 
and peace, 265. 

Grasset, F., saying attributed to 
Scott by, 288. 

Great men, the advantage of study¬ 
ing, 280. 

Greek, Lee’s acquaintance with, 
221-223. 

Gregg, General Maxey, 146. 

Guild, Mrs. Lafayette, 121, 200. 

Hallowell, Benjamin, Lee attends 
school of, 8. 

Hamley, Sir Edward, on the “pre¬ 
science” of successful generals, 
193 . 

Hart, Professor A. B., on Davis’s 
cabinet, 68. 

Henderson, G. F. R., on Lee and 
Davis, 55; on Lee’s geniality, 115; 
on Jackson, 134, 142, 143, 148; 
on Lee after Antietam, 161; criti¬ 
cises Lee, 185, 186; praises Lee, 
187, 188, 194, 195; on the latitude 
given by Lee to his division com¬ 
manders, 192, 193; his life of Jack- 
son as psychography, 272. 

Hill, A. P., 159; Lee said to be par¬ 
tial to Virginia incase of, hi; 
quarrel of, with Longstreet, 113; 
quoted in criticism of Lee, 123; 
his relations with Jackson, 146, 
147; at Antietam, 158. 

Hill, B. H., 235; on Lee’s humility, 
239; colloquy of Lee with, 88, 89; 
his estimate of Lee’s generalship, 
174, 175; his description of Lee as 
“a man without guile,” 274. 

Hill, D. H., 191. 

Hood, John B., 161. 

Hooker, General J., on Lee’s army, 
103. 

Hosmer, J. K., quoted, 289. 

Hunt, General H. J., on Lee’s physi¬ 
cal appearance, 22; on the battle 
of Gettysburg, 183; on Lee as a 




INDEX 


3i8 

peacemaker, 203; conversation of, 
with Lee, on Puseyism, 237. 

Hunter, General Andrew, 83, 95, 

251. 

Imboden, General J. D., his report 
of conversation with Lee, 86, 87; 
his description of Lee in time of 
defeat, 163, 164. 

Ives, Colonel J. C., 191. 

Jackson (T. J.), Stonewall, a born 
fighter, 127; without personal 
charm, 127; did not lack warmth 
and human kindness, 128; a man 
of will and energy, 129, 130; his 
love of adventure and his ambi¬ 
tion, 130-132; his religion and 
scrupulousness, 132, 133, 151, 

152; his ambition and his religion, 
how reconciled, 133—135; his early 
opinion of Lee, 135, 136; his loy¬ 
alty to Lee, 136; Lee’s opinion of, 
138-140; and Lee, the practical 
military relations of, 140, 141; 
not adapted to working under 
orders from others, 141, 142; did 
not take kindly to dictation from 
Richmond, 142, 143; loved by his 
soldiers, 143, 144; attitude of of¬ 
ficers toward, 144-146; demanded 
implicit obedience, 144, 145; kept 
his plans to himself, 145; his re¬ 
lations with A. P. Hill, 146, 147; 
his relations with Lee as to strat¬ 
egy and tactics, 147,148; and Lee, 
at Chancellorsville, 148-151; and 
Lee, the military difference be¬ 
tween, 152; Henderson’s life of, as 
psychography, 272. 

Jackson, Mrs. Mary A., 144, 149; 
quoted, 128, 132, 133, 152. . 

Jefferson, President, his opinion of 
Harry Lee’s memoirs, 5; deplores 
lack of educational institutions 
in Virginia, 7. 

Johnson, Samuel, quoted, 276. 

Johnston, Albert Sidney, 52. 


Johnston, J. E., no, 282; Davis’s 
quarrel with, 52; and Lee, 
Ropes’s comparison of, 171, 172; 
letter of Lee to, quoted, 204; Lee’s 
friendship for, 204; his eulogy of 
Lee, 204, 205. 

Johnston, W. P., quoted on Lee, 
200, 203. 

Jomini, Henri, fundamental princi¬ 
ple of, violated by Lee at Gettys¬ 
burg, 181. 

Jones, J. B., quoted, 63, 68, 69, 84. 

Jones, J. W., quoted, 4, 22, 23, 51, 
118, 175, 176, 238, 245. 

Joynes, Professor E. S., quoted, 259, 
261. 

Keyes, E. D., quoted on Lee, 22. 

Lawley, F., correspondent of the 
London Times . on Jackson, 135. 

Leary, Wm. B., teacher of Lee, 8. 

Lee, Fitzhugh, quoted, 3, 193. 

Lee (Henry), Light Horse Harry, 
father of Robert, 4, 5; his attach¬ 
ment to Virginia, 36; his interest 
in literature, 223. 

Lee, Colonel Richard, ancestor of 
Robert, 3. 

Lee, Robert E., his ancestry, 3; his 
indifference to his ancestry, 3, 4; 
at his father’s grave, 5; his rela¬ 
tions with his mother, 5, 6; his 
childhood, 6; his love of sports, 6; 
his boyish memories, 6, 7; his edu¬ 
cation, 7, 8, 221; at West Point, 
8; appointed to Engineer Corps 
and stationed at Old Point Com¬ 
fort, 9; marries Miss Custis, 9; 
his connection with the Virginia 
aristocracy, 9, 10; impression of 
greatness made upon relatives by, 
10; his engineering labors, 10, 11, 
16, 17; his perseverance without 
regard to criticism, 11; his ser¬ 
vices during the Mexican War, 

11—13; his appreciation of Mexi¬ 
can landscape, 14; his words 



INDEX 


3i9 


about a Mexican shrine, 14, 15; 
on the treatment of Trist, 15; on 
Scott as a general, 15, 16; his 
views on the Mexican War, 16; 
superintendent of the West Point 
Academy, 17; appointed to a 
lieutenant-colonelcy, 18; his grief 
at reading funeral service over a 
child, 18; extracts from letters to 
his children, 18, 19; despondent at 
the condition of the country at the 
approach of war, 19; his connec¬ 
tion with the John Brown affair, 
20, 26, 27; his physical qualities 
and personal appearance, 20-24. 

Legend, growth of, to be de¬ 
plored, 25, 26; actions of, guided 
by conscience, 26, 47; his convic¬ 
tion that a soldier should not med¬ 
dle with politics, 26; his attitude 
toward the political parties before 
the war, 27, 28; offered the com¬ 
mand of the United States Army, 
28, 29; his interview with Scott, 
29-32, 289; his resignation of his 
position in the army, 32, 289; ac¬ 
cepts position as commander-in¬ 
chief of Virginia forces, 32, 45, 74; 
discussion of his action in leaving 
the Union, 32-39; his views on se¬ 
cession, 35,92; his attitude toward 
slavery, 39-43. 82 . 8 3 . 207-209; 
no irresolution in, 44, 45; showed 
no bitterness toward the North, 
45; his pride in the cause of the 
South, 45, 46; his conduct free 
from thought of personal credit or 
advantage, 46, 47. 

And Davis, the most prominent 
figures of the Confederacy, 48; 
held the confidence and affection of 
Davis, 53,63,64; his solicitude for, 
and deference to, Davis, 53 ~ 5 8 » 
61; his proposal of resignation af¬ 
ter Gettysburg, 56-58; his dignity, 
58; urged upon Davis the wants 
of the army, 59; occasionally made 
suggestions as to political ques¬ 


tions, 59, 60; conflict of opinion 
between Davis and, in military 
matters, 60, 61; snubs offered to, 
by Davis, 61-63; esteemed and 
admired Davis, 65, 66; suggestion 
that he be made dictator, 70, 71, 
83, 84; appointed commander-in- 
chief of Confederate armies, 71, 
72; remained in harmony with 
Davis to the end, 72, 73. 

His willingness to sacrifice his 
position and prospects, 74, 75; 
disclaimed interference with civil 
authority, 75-77; his attitude 
toward prisoners of war, 76, 77; 
forced to advise and dictate to his 
superiors, 77-81; his views on re¬ 
taliation, 81; his invasion pro¬ 
clamations, 81; criticises the 
Confederate Congress, 82; his ef¬ 
fort to have the negroes enlisted 
as soldiers, 82, 83; refuses to vio¬ 
late his subordination to the presi¬ 
dent, 84; reason for his refusal, 
85-92; his avoidance of duties 
that did not belong to him, 87, 88; 
his colloquy with B. H. Hill, 88, 
89; conversation of, with Bishop 
Wilmer, 92, 93; his idea of peace 
with Confederate independence, 
93-95; his condemnation of the 
lack of earnestness of the South¬ 
ern people, 95, 96; surrendered 
only when fighting was practically 
impossible, 96, 97; after the war 
acted as devoted citizen, 97-99. 

His army devoted to him, 100; a 
great army organizer, 100; treated 
his army as a human body, 101, 
102; his army discipline, 103-106; 
his discipline of officers, 106-109; 
his difficulty with the question of 
promotion, 109-112; quarrels 
among his generals, 112—114; his 
personal relations with his offi¬ 
cers, 114-116; called by Tyler un¬ 
approachable, 115; his democratic 
manner, 116, 117; his extraordin- 



320 


INDEX 


ary memory, 118, 119; simplicity 
of his arrangements, 119-121; be¬ 
loved and trusted by army, 121- 
126; loved and trusted his army, 
125, 126. 

Letter of, to Jackson, quotation 
from, 133; Jackson’s early opin¬ 
ion of, 135, 136; Jackson’s loyalty 
to, 136; his opinion of Jackson, 
138-140; and Jackson, the practi¬ 
cal military relations of, 140, 141; 
his interference in the differences 
between Jackson and Hill, 146, 
147; his relations with Jackson as 
to strategy and tactics, 147, 148; 
and Jackson, at Chancellorsville, 
148-151; his religion compared 
with that of Jackson, 151, 152; 
and Jackson, the military differ¬ 
ence between, 152. 

His conception of his duty and 
his place in battle, 153, 154; at va¬ 
rious battles, — Fredericksburg, 
Antietam, the Peninsular battles, 
and Gettysburg, 154, 155, 160, 
177, 181, 182; to what extent he 
had the soldier’s lust for battle, 
156, 236; the quality of his 
personal courage, 156, 157; at 
Chancellorsville, 157, 160, 165; 
his coolness in battle, 157; never 
wounded, 157, 158; solicitous 

about unnecessary exposure of 
his men, 158, 159; indifferent to 
his own danger, 159; Major Ran- 
son’s testimony to a conversation 
between Longstreet and, 160, 
161; on the Potomac after An¬ 
tietam, 161, 162; his politeness 
in battle, 162; his sympathy in 
battle, 163; Imboden’s descrip¬ 
tion of, in time of defeat, 163, 164; 
enthusiasm of his men, 164, 165; 
his personal influence in critical 
moments, 165; his surrender to 
Grant, 166-168, 277; and Grant, 
compared, 168,169; and Johnston, 
Ropes’s comparison of, 171, 172. 


Statement of events of his mili¬ 
tary career during the war, 173, 
174; various estimates of his gen¬ 
eralship, 174-179; his immense 
difficulties, 180; mistakes of, 181, 
182; Northern eulogy of, 182-184; 
foreign views of, 184-188; Colonel 
Eben Swift’s estimate of, 188,189; 
his organizing ability, 190; his 
boldness, 190; his views on taking 
chances, 191, 192; his energy and 
rapidity of action, 192, 193; his 
knowledge of human nature, 193, 
194; his clear-sightedness, 194, 
195- 

His manner in society, 196- 
198; fond of the company of la¬ 
dies, but without love affairs, 198, 
199; had Old-World courtesy and 
chivalry, 199, 200; had a sense of 
humor, 200-202; courteous in 
business transactions, 202; de¬ 
ferred to others’ opinions, 202, 
203; a peacemaker by nature, 
203; did not give unreserved 
friendship to any, 203, 204; his 
friendship for Johnston, 204; 
Johnston’s eulogy of, 204, 205; 
liked to play the mentor, 205-207; 
as a son, 209; as a father, 209- 
214; pictures of, in his home life, 
214, 215; as a husband, 216; lec¬ 
tures in letters to his wife, 216, 
217; rarely expresses sense of lone¬ 
liness, 217, 218; his love of chil¬ 
dren, 219; his love of animals, 219, 
220. 

His ideas on educational mat¬ 
ters, 221, 257-261; his literary ex¬ 
pression, 221, 222; had no great 
love for literature or science, 222, 
223; was not passionately inter¬ 
ested in the study of his profes¬ 
sion, 223, 224; not sensitive to 
aesthetic pleasures, 224, 225; his 
temper, 225-227; his self-control, 
227, 228; his exactness, 228-230: 
his utterances colorless and re- 



INDEX 


321 


strained, 230-232; his idea of a 
gentleman, 232, 233; his indiffer¬ 
ence to glory, 233, 234; his pa¬ 
tience under criticism, 234-236; 
his religion, 236-246; his humility, 
239, 240. 

Saddened by the war, 247; de¬ 
sired quiet, 247, 253; his attitude 
toward the United States Govern¬ 
ment, 247, 248; his attitude 
toward the captivity of Davis, 
248, 249; his attitude toward poli¬ 
tics after the war, 249; his views on 
negro suffrage, 249; remembered 
and prayed for his soldiers, 250; 
remembered by his soldiers, 250, 
251; comments of, on the war, 
251, 252; shunned publicity 

through the press, 252; his admir¬ 
ing friends and his family, 254; of¬ 
fers made to, 255, 256; president 
of Washington College, 256-264; 
his death, 258; his influence in 
bringing about reconciliation and 
peace, 265; was great, though he 
failed, 265, 266; and psycho- 
graphy, 269-283. 

Lee, Captain R. E., son of Lee, his 
testimony to Lee’s tact when su¬ 
perintendent of the West Point 
Academy, 17, 18; on Lee’s like¬ 
nesses, 22; on Lee’s guidance of 
his children, 154; on Lee’s re¬ 
quirement obedience in the 
family, 210, 211; his pictures of 
Lee’s home life, 213-216; on Lee’s 
lcv^e of children, 219; on interest 
in Lee after the war, 254. 

Lee, Mrs. Robert E., 229; marriage, 
9; her account of the way in which 
Lee’s decision to leave the Union 
was made, 44; as wife and mo¬ 
ther, 198, 215, 216. 

Lees, the, of Virginia, 3, 4. 

Lincoln, Abraham, 21, 40, 309. 

Literature, Lee’s lack of great inter¬ 
est in, 222-224. 

Livermore, Colonel T. L., on the 


question why Lee did not earlier 
abandon Petersburg, 161; on the 
generalship of Grant and Lee, 302. 

Livermore, Colonel W. R., on mis¬ 
takes made by Lee, 181, 182; on 
the Wilderness Campaign, 183; 
commends Lee, 184. 

Long, Colonel A. L., his description 
of Lee .at his father’s grave, 5; on 
Lee’s love of hunting, 6; on the 
impression made by Lee of being 
a great man, 10; on Lee’s charac¬ 
ter, 25; states that Scott urged 
Lee to remain in the Union, 29; 
his report of colloquy between 
Lee and B. H. Hill, 88; on Lee’s 
equipment of an army, 100; words 
of Lee to, on mercenary and vol¬ 
unteer armies, 104; anecdote of 
Lee and, 120; on Lee at Freder¬ 
icksburg, 154; on Lee’s manner 
in society, 197; on Lee’s conversa¬ 
tion, 202. 

Longstreet, James, on Lee’s charm 
in conversation about his child¬ 
hood, 6,7; on his own decision with 
regard to leaving the Union, 36, 
37; on depletion of forces by de¬ 
sertion, 62; Jackson accused of dis¬ 
respect toward Lee by, 141; pa¬ 
tronized Lee, 106,107; quarrel of, 
with Hill, 113; loved and trusted 
Lee, 122, 123; disapproved Lee’s 
determination to fight at Sharps- 
burg, 137; his description of Lee 
at Gettysburg, 160; a conversation 
between Lee and, 160, 161; his 
estimate of Lee’s generalship, 
176; on Lee at Gettysburg, 177. 

Lowell, J. R., his A Great Public 
Character, a model of psycho- 
graphy, 269. 

Macaulay, T. B., his way of putting 
things, 271, 312; his description of 
Laud, 277. 

Malvern Hill, 182, 186. 

Mangold, quoted, 103. 




322 


INDEX 


Marshall, Colonel Charles, on the 
love of Lee’s men for their general, 
124; his description of the third 
day at Chancellorsville, 165, 166. 

Mason, Miss E. V., quoted, 7, 
209. 

Mason and Slidell, Lee on capture 
of, 274. 

McClellan, General G. B., 190, 194, 
231, 252. 

McGuire, Hunter, 136; quoted, 144. 

McKim, Rev. Dr. R. H., anecdote 
told by, 302. 

Meigs, General M. C., on Lee’s phy¬ 
sical appearance, 22; on Lee’s dig¬ 
nity, 58. 

Mexican War, Lee’s services during, 
11-13; Lee’s views on, 16. 

Mexico, Lee’s appreciation of scen¬ 
ery in, 14, 15. 

Motives, not easy to arrive at, 276, 
277. 

Napoleon Bonaparte, 21; his exemp¬ 
tion from responsibility, 75, 76; 
his address to his soldiers in Vi¬ 
enna quoted, 81; on the necessity 
to a general of a cool head, 171; 
Emerson on, 195. 

Negroes, Lee’s effort to have them 
enlisted, 82, 83; Lee’s views on 
giving the suffrage to, 249. 

Northrop, Lucius B., commissary- 
general of the Confederacy, 59, 
88 . 

Olmsted, Frederick Law, on the 
Virginia aristocracy, 9. 

Page, Thomas Nelson, on the Vir¬ 
ginia aristocracy, 9; his descrip¬ 
tion of Lee riding through the 
ranks before a conflict, 165; anec¬ 
dote of Lee told by, 263. 

Palfrey, General F. W., 180; quoted, 
100. 

Paris, Comte de, 185. 

Passports, 80. 


Pendleton, General William N., on 
Lee’s manner in society, 196; on 
Lee’s religion, 238. 

Peninsular battles, 155, 182, 192. 

Pickens, Governor F. W., quoted, 
122. 

Pickett, G. E., animadversions in his 
report of the battle of Gettysburg, 

113, 114. 

Pierson, Norris E., 312. 

Pillage, Lee’s orders in regard to, 
105. 

Pillow, G. J., his testimony to Lee’s 
services in the Mexican War, 13. 

Politics, Lee reluctant to interfere in 
questions of, 59, 60, 75; Lee’s atti¬ 
tude toward, after the war, 249. 

Pollard, E. A., 70, 82, 85; on Lee and 
Davis, 53, 84; his opinion of Da¬ 
vis, 68; words of Mrs. Davis 
quoted by, 71; his statement that 
Lee never expressed an opinion as 
to the chances of the war, 91; his 
estimate of Lee’s generalship, 
176. 

Polybius, quoted, 194. 

Porter, Colonel Horace, on Lee’s sur¬ 
render, 277. 

Potomac, the, Lee on, after Antie- 
tam, 161, 162. 

Preston, Colonel Robert, on Lee’s 
physical appearance, 22. 

Preston, Mrs. M. J., 131. 

Prisoners of war, Lee’s attitude 
toward, 76, 77. 

Proclamation, invasion, Lee’s, 81. 

Promotion, the question of, in Lee’s 
army, 109-112. 

Psychography, and Lee, 269-283; 
meaning of the word, 269; diffi¬ 
culties of, 269-278; reasons for en¬ 
gaging in, 278-280. 

Putnam, Mrs. E. W., 223. 

Ranson, Major A. R. H., on Lee’s 
officers, 108; his testimony to a 
conversation between Lee and 
Longstreet, 160, 161. 




INDEX 


Rawle, William, his text-book on the 
Constitution of the United States, 
33- 

Reconstruction, Lee’s attitude to¬ 
ward the methods of, 248. 

Reconstruction Committee, the, 36, 
77, 248, 249. 

Redwood, Allen C., 296. 

Religion, Lee’s views on, 236-246. 

Renan, J. E., 275. 

Retaliation, Lee’s ideas on, 81. 

Rhett, Edmund, on President Da¬ 
vis, 66; his abuse of B. H. Hill, 
274. 

Rhodes, James Ford, on Lee’s char¬ 
acteristics, 25; how far impartial, 
270. 

Richmond Examiner , on giving su¬ 
preme power to Lee, 70, 71, 83, 84; 
on Lee’s responsibility in enlisting 
slaves as soldiers, 83. 

Roberts, Lord, quotes Napoleon’s 
remark about a cool head, 171; on 
Wellington, 195. 

Roosevelt, Theodore, his eulogy of 
Lee, 184. 

Ropes, John Codman, on Davis, 55; 
condemns Lee’s determination to 
fight at Sharpsburg, 137; his com¬ 
parison of Johnston and Lee, 171; 
on mistakes made by Lee, 181, 
182; admires Lee’s temerity, 183; 
commends Lee, 184. 

Rothschild, Alonzo, his Lincoln: 
Master of Men , a model of psycho- 
graphy, 269. 

Rusling, General James F., anecdote 
of Lincoln told by, 309. 

Sainte-Beuve, C. A., a psycho- 
grapher, 269, 272; on Macau¬ 
lay, 271, 312 ; his views on re¬ 
ported speeches, 275, 276; on 
the degree of intimacy obtain¬ 
able in the study of fellow-men, 
278; weakest in point of love, 
282. 

Saint-Simon, Louis de Rouvroy, 


323 

Due de, 269,270; on La Feuillade, 
278. 

Scheibert, J., 185; commends brav¬ 
ery of Jackson’s troops at Chan- 
cellorsville, 104; his testimony to 
Lee’s coolness in battle of Chan- 
cellorsville, 157, 160; says Lee was 
restless and uneasy at Gettys¬ 
burg, 160; remark of, that Lee in 
some points anticipated later tac¬ 
tics of Prussian army, 303. 

Scott, General Winfield, his testi¬ 
mony to Lee’s services in the Mexi¬ 
can War, 12, 13; Lee’s testimony 
to the character of, as a general, 
15, 16, 288; his interview with Lee 
before the Civil War, 29-32. 

Secession, the principle of, 34-39,92. 

Seddon, J. A., 63, 77, 78. 

Sedgwick, H. D., his definition of 
democracy, 232. 

Seward, W. H., 50. 

Shields, James, his testimony to 
Lee’s services in the Mexican 
War, 13. 

Slavery, Lee’s attitude toward, 39- 
43, 82, 83, 207-209. 

Smith, G. W., quoted in criticism of 
Lee, 122, 123. 

Smith, General P. F., his testimony 
to Lee’s services in the Mexican 
War, 12. 

Society, Lee in, 196-203; motives of 
men in seeking, 217, 218. 

Sorrel, G. M., quoted, 6, 106, 117, 
1 99- 

Speeches, reported, what is true in 
them, 275, 276. 

Stephens, Alexander H., on Lee’s 
physical appearance, 23; his pic¬ 
ture of Lee’s willingness to sacrifice 
his position and prospects, 74, 75. 

Stiles, Robert, quoted, no, 113. 

Stuart, General J. E. B., 107, 109, 
114, 276. 

Swift, Colonel Eben, on Lee and the 
Wilderness campaign, 188-190. 

Swinton, William, 252. 



324 


INDEX 


Taylor, Colonel W. H., anecdotes of 
Lee told by, 120, 226, 228. 

Thayer, Colonel, on drunkenness 
and dissipation at West Point, 
8 . 

Townsend, General E. D., his ac¬ 
count of interview between Lee 
and Scott, 29-31; error in his nar¬ 
rative, 289. 

Trist, N. P., Lee on the treatment 
of, 15. 

Twiggs, General D. E., anecdote of, 
109. 

Tyler, John, Jr., hi, 115, 118. 

United States Government, Lee’s 
attitude toward, after the war, 
247, 248. 

Vance, Governor, 94, 95. 

Vaughan-Sawyer, Captain G. H., 
on the Wilderness campaign, 
187. 

Venable, Colonel Charles S., quoted, 
22, 115, 116, 225. 

Virginia, education in, in Jefferson’s 
time, 7; aristocracy of, 9; joins the 
Confederacy, 74. 

Washington, George, 21, 35. 

Washington College, 243, 256-264. 


7 / r > »y 

Washington and Lee University. 
See Washington College. 

Webb, General A. S., quoted, 183. 

Wellington, Duke of, 75, 195. 

West Point, Lee a student at, 8; dis¬ 
sipation among students at, 8; 
Lee superintendent at, 17. 

White, H. A., quoted, 17. 

Whiting, General W. H. C., 62. 

Wilderness, Lee in battles of, 159; 
campaign, condemned by Amer¬ 
ican critics, 183; approved by 
English critics, 187; Colonel Eben 
Swift on, 188, 189. 

Wilmer, Bishop, conversation of, 
with Lee, 92, 93. 

Wilson, Henry, 40. 

Wise, General Henry A., animosi¬ 
ties of, 113; anecdote of his swear¬ 
ing, 206, 207; anecdote illustrating 
his respect for Lee’s judgment, 
265. 

Wise, J. S., on Lee’s physical appear¬ 
ance, 23; on Lee’s influence over 
friends and family, 97. 

Wolseley, Lord, on Lee, 185; on 
Napoleon, 194. 

Wood, W. B., and Edmunds, J. E. t 
quoted, 154, 155, 186. 

Young, J. R., quoted, 179. 







Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2010 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 




































